\^ 


;*     MAR   2  1909     *, 


^^Gi 


Divisioi 
Section 


®ur  flew  XCestament 


*     MAR  2  1909 


IWew  ^eetament 


HowDt&Me6ct  It? 


m 


Drofessor  of  dburcb  Wlgtorie 

in 
Cro3er  Ubeological  ScminatB 


IPbiladelpbia 

Hmerican  Baptist  publication  Society 

3Bo0ton  Cbicago  Btlanta 

IRew  15ot?i         St»  Xouie         Ballag 


Copyright  1908  by 
A.  J.  ROWLAND,  Secretary 


Published  November,  1908 


TO 

flUilton  (5*  Evans,  ®.  !)♦ 

MY    COLLEAGUE    IN    THE    SEMINARY    AND    IN 
THE  STUDY  OF  THE  WORD 


PREFACE 


This  book  has  been  described  in  advance,  by 
some  of  the  author's  friends,  as  an  answer  to 
''  The  Formation  of  the  New  Testament,"  by  Dr. 
George  H.  Ferris.  Since  it  professes  to  be  a  his- 
torical investigation,  and  not  a  work  of  apolo- 
getics or  polemics,  it  can  be  an  answer  to  any  other 
book  only  in  the  sense  that  it  reaches  a  totally  dif- 
ferent conclusion,  as  the  result  of  the  inquiry.  In 
a  few  cases  only,  where  it  seemed  to  be  erroneous 
in  the  statement  of  some  material  fact,  or  in  the 
drawing  of  some  important  inference,  has  the 
book  of  Doctor  Ferris  been  singled  out  for  com- 
ment. In  this  respect  it  has  been  treated  no  dif- 
ferently from  the  writings  of  Harnack  and  Jii- 
licher,  and  even  Westcott  and  Gregory,  each  of 
whom  has  sometimes  erred  in  fact  or  in  inference, 
as  has  been  duly  pointed  out.  For  his  own  errors, 
the  author  bespeaks  the  friendly  and  candid  se- 
verity of  every  reader.  And  he  would  repeat 
what  he  has  said  on  another  occasion :  "  Only  by 
repeated  investigation,  and  as  frequent  compari- 
son of  conclusions,  can  the  facts  and  their  in- 
terpretation be  ultimately  established.  It  is  glory 
enough  for  any  of  us  to  have  contributed  even  one 
small  stone  to  the  temple  of  truth." 

Crozer  Theological  Seminary,  September  x,  1908. 

vii 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


This  list  does  not  profess  to  be  exhaustive,  but  only  to 
give  the  titles  of  the  books  most  consulted  in  the  writing 
of  this  book,  and  most  frequently  referred  to  in  its  pages. 
They  are  also  the  books  most  accessible  to  any  who  may 
wish  to  carry  their  studies  on  the  Canon  further. 

Charteris,  "  Canonicity :  a  Collection  of  Early  Testi- 
monies to  the  Canonical  books  of  the  New  Testament." 
Edinburgh,  1880.  A  storehouse  of  fact.  Anybody  who  has 
and  masters  this  book,  knows  all  that  is  to  be  known 
about  the  early  history  of  the  Canon. 

Ferris,  "  The  Formation  of  the  New  Testament."  Phila- 
delphia, 1907.  Excellent  in  spirit  and  style,  but  gives  a  very 
incomplete  view  of  the  facts,  and  is  singularly  unfortunate 
in  its  generalizations. 

Gregory,  "  Canon  and  Text  of  the  New  Testament." 
International  Theological  Library,  New  York,  1907.  Con- 
servative and  judicious  in  tone,  scholarly  in  substance,  but 
in  style  hardly  in  keeping  with  the  series  of  which  it  is  a 
member. 

Harnack,  "  Geschichte  der  altchristlichen  Littcratur 
bis  Eusebius."  Zwciter  Theil:  Die  Chronologie.  Band  I. 
Bis  Irenaeus,  Leipzig,  1897.  Band  II.  Von  Ircnaeus  bis 
Eusebius,  Leipzig,  1904 ;  "  Histor>'  of  Dogma."  Translated 
from  the  third  edition  by  Neil  Buchanan.  Seven  volumes, 
Boston,  1896-1900;  "Das  Neue  Testament  um  das  Jahr 
200"  Freiburg,  1889.  Hamack  has  written  no  book  on  the 
Canon,  but  his  views  are  pretty  fully  set  forth  in  the 
volumes  and  pamphlet  above  named.  He  is  always  learned, 
frequently  brilliant,  and  sometimes  a  safe  guide.  He  can 
never  be  ignored. 
viii 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  IX 

HoLTZMANN,  H.  ].,  "  LcJirbuch  der  Historisch-Kritisch 
Einleitung  in  das  Neue  Testament."  Third  edition.  Frei- 
burg, 1892.  Perhaps  the  best  book  from  the  extreme 
radical  school  of  criticism.  Pages  75-204  are  devoted  to  the 
history  of  the  Canon. 

JtJLiCHER,  "  An  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament." 
Translated  from  the  second  edition  by  Janet  Penrose  Ward. 
New  York,  1904.  The  author  occupies  ground  midway  be- 
tween Holtzmann  and  Harnack.  He  is  scholarly  and  can- 
did, but  much  inclined  to  daring  hypotheses  that  have  slight 
support  in  fact.  The  translator  is  a  daughter  of  Mrs, 
Humphry  Ward. 

Scrivener,  "  A  Plain  Introduction  to  the  Criticism  of  the 
New  Testament."  Fourth  edition.  Two  volumes.  London, 
1894.  A  well-known  and  useful  handbook,  containing  much 
valuable  information  about  manuscripts  and  early  versions. 

"  The  Ante-Nicene  Fathers,"  edited  by  A.  Cleveland 
Coxe,  D.  D.  Nine  volumes.  New  York,  1886-1890.  "The 
Nicene  and  Post-Nicene  Fathers."  First  series.  Fourteen 
volumes.  New  York,  1886- 1890.  "  The  Nicene  and  Post- 
Nicene  Fathers."  Second  series.  Fourteen  Volumes.  New 
York,  1890-1900.  The  best  guide  for  the  English  reader 
through  the  mazes  of  patristic  literature.  The  quotations 
from  the  Fathers  in  this  book  have  usually  been  made 
from  these  editions,  but  have  invariably  been  compared  with 
the  original,  and  in  some  cases  altered  to  make  the  render- 
ing more  exact.  They  are  cited  in  footnotes  and  other 
references   as    ANF,    PNF,    and   2  PNF. 

Weiss,  "  A  Manual  of  Introduction  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment." Translated  from  the  German  by  A.  J.  K.  Davidson. 
New  York  (n.  d.).  Pages  28-148  of  Vol.  I  are  devoted  to 
the  Canon.  It  is  the  ripe  work  of  one  of  the  most  con- 
servative of  German  scholars. 

Westcott,  "  A  General  Survey  of  the  History  of  the 
Canon  of  the  New  Testament."  Seventh  edition.  London, 
1896.  The  most  learned  work  in  English,  and  in  this  last 
edition    fully    brought    down    to    date.      For    the    serious 


X  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

student  nothing  could  be  better,  but  Bishop  Westcott's 
most  ardent  admirer  could  hardly  call  this  an  interesting 
book. 

Zahn,  "  Geschichte  des  neuestestamentlichen  Kanons" 
Two  volumes.  Leipzig,  1888,  1892;  "  Grundiss  der  Ge- 
schichte  des  neuestestamentlichen  Kanons."  Second  edition. 
Leipzig,  1904.  The  first  conceded  to  be  a  monument  of 
erudition,  even  by  those  who  oppose  most  strongly  its  con- 
clusions; the  second  an  excellent  compend  for  the  use  of 
students.  Zahn  is  the  most  extreme  in  his  conservative 
orthodoxy  of  German  writers  on  the   subject. 


CONTENTS 

Chapter  Page 

I.   Nature  and  Scope  of  the  Inquiry    ....  i 

II.  The   Idea  of  the  Apostolic  Writings  as 

Scripture 21 

III.  The  Beginnings  of  a  Collection 55 

IV.  The  Voice  of  Heresy 93 

V.  The  Provisional  Canon 135 

VI.  The  Disputed  Books 169 

VII.  The  Rejected  Books 207 

VIII.  The  Voice  of  Authority .  241 

IX.  The  Testimony  OF  Manuscripts  and  Versions  271 

X.  The  Tests  of  Canonicity 303 

XI.  Conclusions 335 

xi 


Xll  CONTENTS 

Page 

Appendix— Thp:  Documents  in  the  Case 363 

I.  The  Muratorian  Fragment 365 

II.  The  Canon  of  Eusebius 368 

III.  The  Canon  of  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  .    .  369 

IV.  The  Canon  of  Laodicea 370 

V.  The  Canon  of  Athanasius 371 

VI.  The  Canon  of  the  ' '  Apostolic  Canons  "  372 

VII.  The  Canon  of  Amphilochius 373 

VIII.  The  Canon  of  Gregory  Nazianzen  .    .  374 

IX.  The  Canon  of  Jerome 375 

X.  The  Canon  of  the  Council  of  Carthage  376 

XI.  The  Canon  of  Augustine 376 

XII.  The  Canon  of  Rufinus 377 

XIII.  The  List  of  the  Codex  Alexandrinus  .  378 

XIV.  The  Canon  of  Pope  Innocent  I  .  .    .    .  378 

XV.  The  Canon  of  Pope  Gelasius 379 

XVI.  The    Ratification    of    the    Trullan 

Council. 379 

XVII.  The  Canon  of  Pope  Eugenius  IV  .    .    .  380 


NATURE  AND  SCOPE  OF  THE  INQUIRY 


I 


WHEN  at  the  Leipzig  Disputation  of  15 19, 
the  turning-point  of  the  Reformation, 
Doctor  Eck,  of  Ingolstadt,  the  champion  of  the 
Roman  Church,  asserted  the  supreme  authority  of 
the  pope  in  matters  of  doctrine,  Luther  retorted  x/ 
that  not  the  pope  but  the  Scriptures  are  the  su- 
preme authority.  ''  Neither  is  it  in  the  power  of 
the  Roman  pontiff  to  frame  new  articles  of  faith," 
said  Luther,  "  but  only  to  judge  according  to 
those  already  framed.  Nor  can  any  faithful 
Christian  be  compelled  to  anything  beyond  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  which  constitute,  properly 
speaking,  the  divine  law,  unless  a  new  and  ap- 
proved revelation  be  added.  Aye,  by  divine  law 
we  are  forbidden  believing  anything  except  what 
is  proved  either  from  Scripture  or  by  manifest 
revelation."  At  the  time  Luther  uttered  these 
words,  he  still  believed  himself  to  be  a  loyal 
member  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  but  he 
had  unconsciously  announced  the  formal  principle 
of  Protestantism. 

As  the  Reformation  progressed,  the  importance 

3 


4  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

of  this  principle  was  more  and  more  clearly  recog- 
nized, until  Chillingworth  gave  it  that  epigram- 
matic form  which  has  since  had  so  wide  circu- 
lation, "  The  Bible  and  the  Bible  only  is  the 
religion  of  Protestants."  A  more  carefully  defined 
statement  of  the  same  idea  found  a  prominent 
place  in  the  Westminster  Confession :  "  The 
whole  counsel  of  God,  concerning  all  things 
necessary  for  his  own  glory,  man's  salvation, 
faith,  and  life,  is  either  expressly  set  down  in 
Scripture,  or  by  good  and  necessary  consequence 
may  be  deduced  from  Scripture:  unto  which 
nothing  at  any  time  is  to  be  added,  whether  by 
new  revelations  of  the  Spirit,  or  traditions  of 
men."  This  was  inserted  without  change  in 
the  Savoy  Declaration  of  the  Congregational 
churches,  in  1658,  and  in  the  Confession  of  the 
English  Baptists,  of  1688,  widely  known  in  the 
United  States  as  the  Philadelphia  Confession. 
Since  statements  identical  in  substance  are  con- 
tained in  all  Protestant  Confessions,  this  may  be 
taken  as  the  common  standard  of  orthodoxy  to 
this  day. 

This  assertion  of  the  supreme  authority  of  the 
Scriptures  has  always  been  believed  to  permit  a 
reasonable  liberty  of  opinion  concerning  the  doc- 


NATURE   AND    SCOPE    OF    THE   INQUIRY  5 

trine  of  their  inspiration.  Neither  the  nature,  the 
method,  nor  the  extent  of  inspiration  is  defined 
in  any  Articles  of  Faith  set  forth  by  a  Protestant 
or  evangeHcal  body;  and  while  on  the  whole  a 
"  high  "  doctrine  of  inspiration  has  been  regarded 
as  more  correct,  or  at  least  as  ''  safer,"  any  doc- 
trine has  been  tolerated  (though  with  some  re- 
luctance at  times)  that  did  not  seriously  impair 
the  religious  authority  of  the  Bible.  Even  the  ^ 
vexed  question  of  errancy  or  inerrancy  in  the 
Scriptures  has  never  been  authoritatively  deter- 
mined in  any  creed,  or  been  made  a  test  of  fellow- 
ship in  any  denomination.  The  suggestion  of 
errors  in  the  Scriptures  has  undoubtedly  been 
looked  upon  with  much  disfavor,  and  those  who 
maintain  that  errors  exist  have  often  been  called 
heretical ;  but  this  has  been  the  opprobrious  lan- 
guage of  opponents  in  controversy,  not  the  well- 
considered  condemnation  of  a  recognized  eccle- 
siastical tribunal. 

Until  quite  recently  it  has  not  been  clearly  per- 
ceived that  there  is  a  question  lying  back  of  that 
which  has  hitherto  absorbed  attention — a  funda- 
mental question,  a  question  therefore  of  the  first 
importance  and  of  compelling  interest.  Before 
we  can  ask.  What  is  the  authority  of  Scripture? 


v/ 


6  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

or,  at  any  rate,  before  we  can  answer  the  ques- 
tion, we  must  ask  and  answer  the  deeper  ques- 
tion, What  is  Scripture  ?  The  Reformers  ^  did  not 
feel  the  full  stress  of  this  prior  question  because, 
in  their  contest  with  the  Romanists,  both  parties 
recognized  the  same  New  Testament,  both  alike 
admitted  its  authority.  The  exact  point  of  dif- 
ference then  was.  Has  tradition  equal  authority 
with  Scripture,  and  must  we  accept  teachings 
of  the  Fathers  and  decisions  of  Councils  that  rest 
on  tradition,  not  on  the  Scriptures  ?  On  this  issue 
the  Reformation  battle  was  fought. 

Luther  was  the  only  one  among  the  Reformers 
to  appreciate  the  importance  of  the  question, 
What  is  Scripture  ?  But  Luther  raised  this  ques- 
tion, not  so  much  because  of  its  fundamental  im- 
portance, as  because  he  found  it  difficult  to  recon- 
cile his  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  alone 
with  the  Epistle  of  James,  which  seemed  to  him 
to  teach  justification  by  faith  and  works.  Instead 
of  seeking  a  better  exegesis  of  both  Paul  and 
James,  which  would  have  shown  their  essential 

*  We  are  speaking,  be  it  remembered,  of  the  New  Testament  ex- 
clusively. The  Reformers  did  raise  the  question.  What  is  Scrip- 
ture? with  regard  to  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  result  of  the 
ensuing  controversy  in  the  Reformation  period  was  the  rejection 
as  apocryphal  of  the  Greek  books  that  since  the  version  of  Jerome 
had  been  accepted  in  the  Catholic  Church  as  Scripture. 


NATURE   AND    SCOPE    OF   THE    INQUIRY  7 

harmony,  he  too  easily  accepted  the  theory  of  an 
irreconcilable  conflict  between  them,  and  for  him- 
self rejected  James  altogether,  calling  it  an  epistle 
of  straw  (ein  recht  strohren  Epistcl).  Having 
begun  thus  by  excluding  one  book  of  the  New 
Testament,  he  went  on  to  reject  others,  notably 
the  Apocalypse.  But  while,  for  his  private  use 
and  edification,  Luther  thus  reconstructed  the 
New  Testament  according  to  his  notions  of  what 
it  should  be,  he  did  not  subject  all  the  writings 
to  critical  scrutiny,  and  he  laid  down  no  princi- 
ple by  which  another  could  certainly  determine 
whether  a  given  book  should  be  in  our  New 
Testament  or  not.  The  other  Reformers  treated 
these  ideas  of  Luther  as  mere  vagary  or  eccen- 
tricity, and  let  them  go  at  that. 

But  we  cannot  to-day  pass  by  indifferently  or 
wave  aside  as  of  no  practical  consequence  this 
fundamental  question,  What  is  Scripture?  Cir- 
cumstances have  forced  it  on  our  attention  and 
compel  its  serious  consideration.  The  scholar- 
ship of  the  age  is  much  occupied  with  it,  and  even 
the  plain  people  wish  to  know  what  scholars  are 
thinking  and  saying  among  themselves  about  the 
Bible.  Then  too,  the  Reformation  polemics  are 
not  the  polemics  of  to-day.     We  used  to  say  to 


8  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

the  Romanist,  "  We  cannot  accept  the  authority 
of  the  Church;  we  stand  upon  the  teaching  of 
the  New  Testament."  And  having  said  this,  we 
flattered  ourselves  that  we  had  settled  the  matter. 
But  we  are  now  somewhat  dismayed  to  find  that 
when  we  have  said  this,  the  discussion,  so  far 
from  being  ended,  is  only  begun.  For  the  Ro- 
manist at  once  retorts,  *'  The  Church  existed  be- 
fore the  New  Testament;  the  Church  gave  you 
the  New  Testament  and  guarantees  its  authority ; 
in  accepting  the  New  Testament  you  accept  the 
authority  of  the  Church,  and  every  time  you  ap- 
peal to  Scripture  you  logically  appeal  to  that 
Church  which  gave  it  to  you."  And  some  of 
our  own  scholars  are  assuring  us  that  the  Church 
of  Rome  is  historically  justified  in  her  contention; 
that  she  did  give  Christendom  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  guaranteed  its  authenticity  and  au- 
thority; that  it  is  the  historic  fact  that  Rome 
made  the  Canon,  and  therefore  the  validity  of  the 
Canon  is  just  as  great  as  the  authority  of  Rome, 
and  no  greater. 

If  this  is  true,  then,  humiliating  as  the  confes- 
sion may  be,  it  must  be  acknowledged  that  Prot- 
estants have  been  wrong  from  the  beginning.  In 
appealing  from  the  authority  of  Rome  to  the 


NATURE   AND   SCOPE   OF   THE   INQUIRY  9 

Scriptures  they  were  making  a  false  issue — in 
the  very  appeal  they  unwittingly  acknowledged 
the  authority  that  they  intended  to  repudiate. 
Shall  we  deny  the  right  of  Rome  to  declare  what 
is  the  true  interpretation  of  a  passage  of  Scrip- 
ture, and  admit  her  right  to  decide  for  us  the 
whole  question  of  what  is  Scripture?  That  is 
not  merely  illogical,  it  is  suicidal.  If  it  is 
historic  truth  that  Rome  made  the  Canon,  the 
Protestant  claims  are  completely  undermined. 
To  accept  Rome's  authority  in  the  fundamental 
question,  What  is  Scripture?  and  then  cavil 
about  her  authority  to  answer,  What  does  Scrip- 
ture mean?  is  surely  io  strain  out  the  gnat  and 
swallow  the  camel. 

Nevertheless,  if  it  is  the  historic  fact  that  Rome 
made  the  New  Testament  Canon,  and  Protestants 
have  in  reality  accepted  it  on  her  sole  authority, 
the  fact  must  be  acknowledged  and  the  conse- 
quences must  be  faced.  We  must  before  all 
things  receive  the  truth  and  follow  whither  she 
leads.  No  respect  for  Protestant  tradition,  no 
pride  of  consistency,  no  reluctance  to  confess 
a  long-upheld  error,  shall  prevent  us  from  the 
hearty  and  loyal  acceptance  of  the  truth.  That  is 
what  we  daily  pray  the  Holy  Spirit  to  teach  us, 


lO  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

that  is  what  we  love  and  honor,  to  that  we  will, 
like  the  fathers  whom  we  revere,  be  faithful  even 
unto  death.  But — is  this  the  truth  ?  Aye,  there's 
the  rub!  The  question  must  receive  more  care- 
ful consideration  than  has  been  given  to  it  by  the 
Protestant  world  before  men  are  ready  to  answer. 

What  is  Scripture?  is  therefore  the  question 
of  questions  to-day.  The  answer  that  has  been 
given  for  generations  no  longer  answers.  It 
is  not  enough  to  say.  The  New  Testament,  for 
at  once  the  further  question  arises  and  will 
not  down.  Where  and  how  did  we  get  our  New 
Testament?  And  this  question  must  be  an- 
swered. If  no  satisfactory  reply  is  forthcoming, 
many  will  soon  find  their  confidence  in  the  au- 
thority of  the  New  Testament  seriously  impaired. 

It  was  once  a  common  opinion — of  course  only 
among  the  ill-informed — that  the  New  Testament 
had  always  existed  as  we  now  know  it,  one  book. 
There  was  a  time  when  any  attempt  to  amend  the 
text,  even  of  the  English  version,  was  thought 
by  very  good  people  to  be  incurring  the  evils  de- 
nounced by  the  Revelator  on  any  who  should  add 
to  or  take  from  "  the  words  of  the  prophecy  of 
this  book  " — "  this  book  "  meaning  to  the  igno- 
rant reader  the  whole  Bible  in  his  hands,  from  the 


NATURE   AND   SCOPE   OF   THE   INQUIRY        II 

first  verse  of  Genesis  to  the  final  word  of  Reve- 
lation. That  time  has  happily  passed.  The  Sun- 
day-school has  made  Christian  people  familiar 
with  some  cardinal  facts  about  the  Bible.  The 
least  scholarly  among  us  no  longer  supposes  that 
the  New  Testament  existed  as  a  collected  body  of 
writings  in  the  days  of  the  apostles.  The  most 
ignorant  among  us  now  knows  that  these  twenty- 
seven  writings  that  we  call  the  New  Testament 
were  composed  in  different  places,  at  different 
times,  for  different  purposes,  by  many  different 
writers;  that  a  period  of  probably  forty  or  fifty 
years  intervened  between  the  first  writing  and 
the  last;  and  that  subsequently  these  scattered 
writings  were  gathered  into  one  collection.  So 
much  is  generally  known.  But  When  ?  and  How  ? 
and  Where  ?  As  to  that  the  average  Christian  has 
hitherto  known  little,  but  he  is  beginning  to 
concern  himself  much. 

It  has  also  become  generally  known  that  these 
twenty-seven  books  which  compose  our  New  Tes- 
tament were  not  the  entire  literature  of  the  early 
years  of  Christianity — perhaps  not  all  the  litera- 
ture of  the  apostolic  age  even.  It  is  known  that 
doubts  were  expressed  in  early  times  regarding 
the  genuineness  and  authority  of  some  of  the 


12  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

books  in  our  New  Testament.  These  things  are 
in  the  air;  they  are  found  in  the  newspapers  and 
periodicals  that  our  plain  people  are  reading. 
This  knowledge  causes,  not  exactly  doubt,  but 
perplexity.  People  would  like  to  know  something 
more  about  this  early  Christian  literature,  some- 
thing about  the  reasons  why  part  of  it  was  ad- 
mitted into  the  New  Testament,  while  part  of 
it  was  not.  In  short,  they  are  curious  to  know 
how  and  why  it  came  about  that  just  these  books, 
and  no  others,  were  accepted  as  the  Christian 
Scriptures. 

The  list  of  books  that  compose  our  New  Testa- 
ment is  called  the  Canon,  and  the  process  of 
gathering  the  books  into  a  collection  is  called  the 
formation  of  the  Canon.  The  word  is  much  used, 
but  seldom  defined,  and  this  fact  often  leads  to 
confusion.  Nothing  is  so  efficient  a  preventive 
of  crude  thinking,  or  so  certain  a  protection 
against  misunderstanding,  as  a  precise  definition. 
"  Canon  "  is  a  word  that  is  properly  defined  by  its 
history.  It  is  used  several  times  in  the  Pauline 
Epistles  in  its  ordinary  sense  of  a  rule  or  stand- 
ard (2  Cor.  10  :  13,  15,  16;  Gal.  6  :  16). 
When  the  Christian  writers  of  a  later  time  begin 
to   speak   of  the   "  canonical "    Scriptures,    they 


NATURE    AND    SCOPE    OF    THE    INQUIRY 


13 


mean  those  writings  that  had  been  accepted  as  the 
rule,  norm,  standard  of  the  Christian  faith.  The 
alternative  and  earlier  phrase  is,  "  the  canonized 
Scriptures  ";  and  both  phrases  describe  a  definite 
collection  of  writings,  approved  as  an  authorita- 
tive rule. 

We  may  still  further  define,  by  distinguishing 
the  idea  of  the  Canon  from  certain  related  ideas. 
Canonicity  means  simply  the  fact  of  recognition 
as  one  of  the  books  of  this  authoritative  collec- 
tion. A  book  may  have  all  the  other  qualities  of 
books  that  belong  to  the  Canon  and  yet  lack  can- 
onicity. For  example,  the  Epistle  of  James  could 
not  be  said  to  possess  canonicity  until  the  fourth 
century.  Long  before  that  it  was  conceded  by  a 
large  part  of  the  Church  to  be  inspired,  but  as  its 
addition  to  the  collection  was  not  yet  generally 
recognized,  it  was  not  canonical.  A  book  may 
have  recognized  value,  to  a  high  degree,  and  not 
be  canonical,  as  was  the  case  with  the  Shepherd 
for  a  long  time.  A  book  may  have  a  notable 
history,  and  close  relations  with  canonical  books, 
and  not  be  canonical,  like  the  gospel  of  Nicode- 
mus.  A  book  may  have  become  canonical  in 
spite  of  the  fact  that  its  origin  and  early  history 
are  unknown,  as  did  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 


I 


14  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

The  history  of  the  Canon  is  therefore  something 
quite  different  from  the  history  of  the  books  of 
the  New  Testament.  Each  book  has  an  inter- 
esting history,  but  when  the  facts  concerning 
each  separate  book  have  been  learned  and  all  are 
brought  together,  we  have  at  best  only  materials 
for  the  history  of  the  Canon.  The  history  of  the 
Canon,  then,  is  the  tracing  of  the  process  by 
which  there  grew  up  a  well-defined  collection  of 
books  that  came  to  be  accepted  throughout  the 
Christian  churches,  East  and  West,  as  the  rule 
of  Christian  faith  and  of  Christian  life. 

We  have  defined  the  Canon  as  the  collection  of 
writings  approved  as  the  authoritative  rule  of 
Christian  faith.  Approved  by  whom?  Ap- 
proved when?  Approved  how?  These  are  the 
crucial  questions,  and  when  we  have  found  a 
satisfactory  answer  to  them  we  shall  know  all 
that  is  essential  about  the  formation  of  the  Canon. 
By  a  "satisfactory"  answer  is  meant,  not  an 
answer  that  satisfies  tradition,  or  prejudice,  or  a 
pet  theory,  but  an  answer  that  exactly  accords 
with  all  the  known  facts.  The  questions  at  issue 
must  be  decided  by  fact,  and  sound  reasoning 
based  on  facts,  not  by  authority  or  appeals  to 
passion. 


NATURE    AND    SCOPE    OF    THE    INQUIRY         1 5 

"All  the  known  facts!"  We  must  carefully 
investigate  and  discover  what  they  are ;  we  must 
bravely  and  candidly  face  them  when  found.  We 
have  nothing  to  fear  from  such  inquiry;  it  is 
not  truth  that  is  dangerous,  but  falsehood.  If 
the  Bible  is  what  we  hold  it  to  be,  the  word  of 
God,  it  will  bear  the  most  searching  examina- 
tion,  and  emerge  from  the  test  with  a  triumphant 
vindication  of  its  claim.  No  inquiry  about  the 
Scriptures  should  be  deprecated  or  feared,  pro- 
vided it  is  fair  in  spirit,  thorough  in  its  search  for 
the  whole  truth,  and  impartial  in  its  weighing  of 
evidence.  Truth  is  the  only  object  worthy  of  a 
scholar's  pursuit,  as  it  is  the  only  attainment  capa- 
ble of  satisfying  a  rational  mind.  In  any  case, 
inquiry  is  inevitable;  to  object  to  it  is  futile,  to 
oppose  it  is  both  foolish  and  dangerous.  For  by 
opposing  fair  inquiry  we  make  a  humiliating  con- 
fession of  the  weakness  of  our  cause,  our  secret 
dread  lest  scrutiny  of  the  nature  and  authority  of 
Scripture  should  result  in  discrediting  it.  We 
should  remember  that,  in  the  long  run,  nothing 
can  be  discredited  but  that  which  is  unworthy  of 
credit. 

A  few  words  may  be  properly  added  on  the 
method  to  be  pursued  in  this  inquiry.     This  is 


l6  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

[an  inductive  study,  but  the  deductive  method  can- 
not be  wholly  excluded.  It  will  even  seem  to 
some  readers  that  too  large  a  place  is  occupied 
in  some  of  the  following  chapters  by  deductions 
from  assumed  facts  and  principles.  The  same 
thing  will  be  found  to  be  true  of  all  books  on  the 
history  of  the  Canon,  for  it  is  a  necessity  of  the 
case.  Our  information  regarding  the  beginnings 
of  the  Christian  churches,  and  of  Christian  in- 
stitutions, from  the  days  of  the  apostles  to  the 
close  of  the  second  century,  is  very  fragmentary 
and  incomplete.  The  surviving  literature  is 
scanty,  and  what  remains  is  not  a  literature  of 
fact.  We  are  obliged  to  glean  painfully,  from 
several  thousand  pages  of  patristic  writing,  a  few 
bits  of  knowledge,  piece  these  together  as  best 
we  may,  and  bridge  over  the  yawning  chasms  be- 
tween them  with  the  most  plausible  conjectures 
that  we  can  supply.  The  chief  difference  between 
writers  on  the  Canon  will  be  found  to  consist  in 
the  degree  of  caution,  the  sobriety  of  judgment, 
with  which  this  absolutely  necessary  work  is 
done.  It  is  perfectly  legitimate,  therefore,  for 
the  adequate  interpretation  of  our  incomplete 
facts,  to  ask  ourselves.  What  might  we  fairly 
expect  a  priori  would  occur  in  certain  circum- 


NATURE   AND   SCOPE   OF   THE   INQUIRY        1 7 

Stances,  given  a  known  point  of  departure  and  the 
ordinary  workings  of  human  nature?  If  in  such 
cases,  the  few  facts  that  we  possess  agree  ex- 
actly with  our  deductions,  we  may  rest  in  a 
tolerably  safe  conclusion.  But  ordinarily,  we 
shall  proceed  by  induction  from  the  facts  estab- 
lished by  competent  testimony. 

Hypothesis  is  a  useful  factor  in  all  scientific  in- 
quiry; the  inductive  method  cannot  be  practically 
applied  without  its  aid.  The  imagination  has  also 
its  indispensable  use  in  historical  investigation. 
Both,  however,  should  be  kept  under  rigorous  con- 
trol, as  implements  of  investigation,  and  by  no 
means  should  either  be  suffered  to  dominate  the 
inquiry.  Every  hypothesis  regarding  the  Canon 
should  be  subjected  to  three  tests:  first,  is  it  ra- 
tional and  credible  per  sef  secondly,  does  it  take 
into  account  all  the  known  facts?  thirdly,  does  it 
offer  an  adequate  explanation  of  all  the  facts  ?  A 
hypothesis  that  successfully  endures  these  three 
tests  is  entitled  to  acceptance  as  probably  true — 
the  degree  of  probability  varying  with  the  nature 
of  the  facts,  and  sometimes  amounting  to  a  moral 
certainty.  But  just  as  the  chauffeur  who  has  been 
driving  his  automobile  at  a  speed  that  seems  to  an- 
nihilate distance  has  found  his  powerful  machine 


l8  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

brought  to  a  sudden  standstill  by  a  little  nail  that 
has  punctured  his  tire,  so  many  a  hypothesis  that 
seemed  to  sweep  everything  before  it  in  triumph 
has  been  ignominiously  wrecked  by  a  single  hard 
fact. 

One  other  word  about  the  method  of  the  book. 
An  attempt  has  been  made  in  good  faith  to  give 
every  material  testimony  in  the  writings  of  the 
Fathers,  not  in  paraphrase  or  summary,  but  in 
the  writer's  own  words,  together  with  a  reference 
to  the  source  of  the  quotation.  This  has  been 
done,  even  when  it  involved  somewhat  extended 
quotation,  and  a  consequent  interruption  in  the 
course  of  the  narrative.  It  is  believed  that  no 
relevant  passage  of  any  importance  has  been 
omitted ;  certainly  none  has  been  omitted  because 
of  any  difificulties  that  it  presented.  As  a  result, 
the  reader  will  have  in  his  possession,  when  he 
has  finished  reading  this  book,  the  original 
materials  for  the  history  of  the  Canon,  not  the 
present  history  merely.  He  will  be  in  a  position 
to  judge  whether  the  author  has  treated  the 
materials  fairly,  and  whether  the  conclusions 
drawn  from  them  in  the  book  are  justified.  The 
longer  sources  are  gathered  in  the  Appendix,  and 
only  brief  quotations  from  them  are  made  in  the 


NATURE   AND    SCOPE    OF    THE    INQUIRY        1 9 

text.  This  is  a  guarantee  of  fairness  that  every 
author  ought  wilHngly  to  give,  and  that  all 
readers  and  students  may  at  all  times  be  trusted 
to  appreciate. 

There  are   other  books   that   have   for   their 
purpose  the  telling  of  the  story  of  the  Canon,  but 
most  of  them  are  written  for  scholars,  not  for 
plain  people ;  and,  if  they  were  comprehensible  by 
a  plain  man,  they  are  so  voluminous  that  the     x 
very  sight  of  them  frightens  him  away.     To  tell    1  \ 
this  story  within  reasonable  limits,  and  so  that  the    / 
average  man  can  easily  understand  it,  and  yet  tell  / 
all  that  needs  to  be  told ;  to  tell  the  story  with  an  /  / 
accuracy  that  will  deserve  the  approval  of  schol-  \  / 
ars,  yet  with  an  element  of  interest  that  will  gain  ^ 
the  attention  of  busy  men,  is  the  purpose  of  this  I  j 
book.     It  is  an  ambitious  attempt;   it  may  easily! 
fail  of  success. 

To  determine  when  and  where  we  got  our 
Canon  does  not  completely  answer  the  question, 
What  is  Scripture?  It  will  tell  why  certain 
books,  and  those  only,  came  to  be  accepted  as 
Scripture,  and  so  far  will  give  us  grounds  to  de- 
cide why  we  should  accept  them  as  Scripture. 
Hence  nobody  need  expect — or  fear — to  find  dis- 
cussed in  these  pages  the  inspiration,  the  authen- 


20  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

ticity,  and  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures,  ex- 
cept so  far  as  their  authority  is  necessarily  con- 
nected with  the  history  of  the  Canon.  The  dis- 
cussion will  be  strictly  limited  by  the  title  of  the 
book. 


II 


THE  IDEA  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC 
WRITINGS  AS  "SCRIPTURE" 


II 

EVERY  reader  of  the  New  Testament  is  fa- 
miliar with  the  fact  that  the  collection  of 
books  known  to  us  as  the  Old  Testament  is  de- 
scribed  by   the   apostolic   writers    as    Scripture. 
This  word  is  used  in  a  technical  sense,  implying 
a  special  character  of  sacredness  and  authority 
in   these   writings.      It  was   generally  believed, 
among  Jews  and  Christians  alike,  that  this  special 
character  of  the  Scriptures  was  due  to  the  fact 
that  their  writers  "  spake  from  God,  being  moved 
by  the  Holy  Spirit"     (2   Peter   i  :  21).     The 
reading  of  these  Scriptures,  and  the  explaining 
of  them  to  the  people,  formed  a  regular  part  of 
the  Sabbath  services  in  the  Jewish  synagogues. 
This  was,  in  truth,  the  most  important  part 
of  the  service.     The  synagogue,  unknown  when 
the  canonical  books  of  the  Old  Testament  were 
written,  arose  after  the  exile  in  response  to  the 
need  for  the  instruction  of  the  Israelites  in  the 
law.     This   was   the   primary   function   of  the 
synagogue,  and  worship  was  secondary.     Jose- 
phus  makes  this  plain  when  he  says :   "  Not  once 

23 


24  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

or  twice  or  more  frequently  did  our  lawgiver 
command  us  to  hear  the  law,  but  to  come  together 
weekly,  with  the  cessation  of  other  work,  to  hear 
the  law  and  to  learn  it  accurately  "  (Apion  ii.  7). 
Indeed,  the  Old  Testament  itself  gives  a  prece- 
dent for  such  instruction,  in  the  gathering  of  the 
people  after  the  return  from  captivity  and  the 
reading  of  the  law  to  them  by  Ezra  and  others. 
"  And  they  read  in  the  book,  in  the  law  of  God, 
distinctly;  and  they  gave  the  sense,  so  that  they 
understood  the  reading"  (Neh.  8:8).  In  the 
New  Testament  we  find  plainly  recognized  this 
teaching  of  the  law  as  the  main  function  of  the 
synagogue,  and  Jesus  constantly  availed  himself 
of  this  opportunity  for  instructing  the  people 
during  his  ministry  in  Galilee.^  The  reading  of 
the  law,  and  later  of  the  prophets  also,  and  in- 
struction based  on  such  reading,  was  the  chief 
thing  for  which  the  synagogue  existed,  and 
wherever  the  Jews  were  there  was  a  synagogue: 
"  For  Moses  from  generations  of  old  hath  in 
every  city  them  that  preach  him,  being  read  in 
the  synagogues  every  sabbath"  (Acts  15  :  21). 
When  the  disciples  of  Christ  began  to  preach 

*  Matt.   4  :  23;     Mark   i  :  21;    Luke   4  :  15,   31;     6:6;     13  :   10; 
John  6  :  59;     18  :  20. 


THE   IDEA   OF   SCRIPTURE  2$ 

the  glad  tidings  of  salvation  through  him,  they 
began  in  the  synagogues.  They  made  the  law 
and  the  prophets  the  basis  of  their  teaching,  for 
these  testified  of  the  Messiah  whom  they  pro- 
claimed. The  first  preaching  was  wholly  like 
that  of  Jesus  to  the  two  disciples  whom  he  met 
on  the  way  to  Emmaus  when,  "  beginning  from 
Moses  and  all  the  prophets,  he  interpreted  to 
them  in  all  the  scriptures  the  things  concerning 
himself"  (Luke  24  :  2"/).  The  appeal  was  to 
the  written  word  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  it 
is  recorded  as  the  result  of  apostolic  preaching  at 
Beroea  that  the  Jews  there  were  "  examining  the 
Scriptures  daily  whether  these  things  were  so  " 
(Acts  17  :  11). 

When  the  disciples  thus  made  began  to  gather 
themselves  into  assemblies  of  their  own,  and  the 
Christian  churches  became  clearly  differentiated 
from  the  Jewish  synagogues,  it  was  only  what 
we  ought  to  expect,  in  view  of  the  Jewish  training 
of  most  of  them,  that  they  should  continue  the 
methods  of  the  synagogue,  and  particularly  this 
custom  of  the  public  reading  and  exposition  of 
the  Scriptures.  The  "  reading  "  to  which  Timo- 
thy was  exhorted  to  give  heed  (i  Tim.  4  ^  13) 
was  without  doubt  the  public  reading  of  the  law 


,M'W^^ 


26  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

and  prophets.  That  the  Psalms  were  early  used 
in  Christian  worship,  probably  being  sung  an- 
tiphonally  (Eph.  5  :  19),  as  they  were  intended 
to  be  used,  is  plain  from  several  allusions  in  Paul's 
epistles  (Col.  3  :  16;  cf.  Mark  14  :  26;  Matt. 
'26  :  30).  Since  they  believed  that  these  Scrip- 
tures testified  of  their  Lord,  it  was  inevitable  that 
all  writers  of  the  apostolic  age  should  continually 
appeal  to  the  Old  Testament  as  authoritative — in 
every  dispute,  a  passage  of  Scripture  was  final 
for  confirmation.  And  accordingly,  wherever 
.  we  find  the  Scriptures  mentioned  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, and  in  the  literature  of  the  sub-apostolic 
age,  we  are  to  understand  the  law  and  the 
y  prophets.     The  word  "  Scripture  "  is  never  ap- 

plied to  their  own  writings  by  the  Christian 
writers  of  the  first  century.  They  did  not  place 
their  own  writings  on  an  equality  with  the  law 
and  the  prophets,  nor  claim  for  them  an  equal 
authority. 
f  That  is  to  say,  no  such  formal  claim  was  made. 

But  the  Apostle  Paul  did  virtually  claim  such  au- 
thority in  his  letters  to  the  churches,  especially  to 
the  Corinthians,  when  he  distinctly  says,  "  I 
think  I  have  also  the  Spirit  of  God,"  and  at  one 
time  says  of  his  counsels,  "  not  I,  but  the  Lord," 


THE    IDEA    OF    SCRIPTURE  2^ 

while  at  another  he  is  scrupulous  to  say,  *'  I,  not 
the  Lord"  (i  Cor.  7  :  40,  10,  12).  And  no 
writer  could  claim  the  highest  authority  as  the 
prophet  of  God  in  more  impressive  words  than 
are  used  at  the  close  of  the  Revelation :  "  I  tes- 
tify unto  every  man  that  heareth  the  words  of 
the  prophecy  of  this  book,  If  any  man  shall  add 
unto  them,  God  shall  add  unto  him  the  plagues 
that  are  written  in  this  book;  and  if  any  man 
shall  take  away  from  the  words  of  the  book  of 
this  prophecy,  God  shall  take  away  his  part  from 
the  tree  of  life,  and  out  of  the  holy  city,  which 
are  written  in  this  book."  And  if  none  of  the 
other  writers  of  the  first  century  is  quite  so  em- 
phatic in  the  assertion  of  his  authority  to  speak 
for  God,  that  claim  is  implicit  in  such  writings 
as  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  and  the  Epistles  of 
James  and  Peter.  We  find  in  them  the  same  tone 
that  so  impressed  the  Jews  in  the  teaching  of 
Jesus  (Matt.  7:28,  29)  :  "The  multitudes  were 
astonished  at  his  teaching;  for  he  taught  them 
as  one  having  authority,  and  not  as  their  scribes." 
The  disciples  of  Christ  caught  something  of  his 
manner  and  method,  as  we  feel  when  we  read 
their  writings. 

It  is  often  said   that  the  churches   read  the 


28  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Epistles  of  Paul  in  their  public  worship  long 
before  they  regarded  them  as  Scripture;  but 
can  that  assertion  be  made  good?  It  is  a  fact  of 
record,  to  be  sure,  that  we  find  mention  of  the 
reading  earlier  than  an  explicit  assertion  that  the 
epistles  are  Scripture,  but  that  is  a  very  uncer- 
tain ground  for  an  inference  of  so  grave  a  char- 
acter. No  Father  tells  us  all  that  he  knew  or 
thought,  and  that  facts  are  found  in  a  certain  or- 
der in  patristic  literature  by  no  means  invariably 
proves  that  things  happened  in  that  precise  order. 
May  we  not  go  further  and  say  that,  in  all  proba- 
bility, the  exact  reverse  of  the  above  inference 
is  true — that  the  idea  of  the  scriptural  authority 
of  the  epistles  preceded  their  customary  pubhc 
reading?  For  the  apostles  spoke  as  ambassadors, 
the  representatives  of  Christ,  as  well  as  the  wit- 
nesses of  his  resurrection.  Whatever  authority 
Christ  himself  had,  he  was  supposed  by  the 
churches  to  have  deputed  to  the  apostles.  The 
claim  to  be  directed  by  the  Spirit  of  Christ  is 
implicit  in  all  the  apostolic  writings. 

Nothing  less  than  this  can  account  for  or  jus- 
tify their  tone  of  spiritual,  not  official,  authority. 
Paul  does  not  write  like  a  Catholic  bishop,  as 
Athanasius  or  Augustine  wrote  to  the  churches  in 


THE    IDEA    OF    SCRIPTURE  29 

their  jurisdiction,  or  even  as  Cyprian  wrote.  His 
tone  is  different  even  from  that  of  Ignatius.  He 
writes,  not  as  a  bishop,  but  as  an  apostle.  And 
from  the  first  the  churches  must  have  received 
his  letters  as  he  wrote  them,  recognizing  in  them 
the  voice  of  Christ.  The  churches  continued  the 
use  of  the  Old  Testament  from  habit ;  they  read 
the  apostolic  writings  because  in  them  they  heard 
the  voice  of  their  Master,  their  supreme  authority, 
speaking  through  the  writer.  And  so  soon  as  it 
occurred  to  them  to  ask  which  were  the  more  au- 
thoritative, the  law  and  the  prophets,  or  the  Gos- 
pels and  Epistles,  they  promptly  gave  the  first 
place  to  the  latter,  though  still  retaining  the 
former  because  of  their  testimony  to  Christ. 

The  exceptional  character  of  the  Gospels  and 
Epistles  of  Paul  we  find  distinctly  recognized  in 
the  earliest  Christian  literature,  outside  of  the 
Canon ;  and  a  considerable  part,  if  not  the  whole, 
of  those  writings  that  were  finally  canonized  were 
from  the  first  regarded  as  standing  in  a  class  by 
themselves.  We  do  not  find  them  always  form- 
ally quoted  by  the  earliest  Christian  writers,  nor 
appealed  to  as  an  authority  equal  to  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, as  came  to  be  the  later  usage,  but  we  find 
evidence  of  a  certain  familiarity  with  their  con- 


30  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

tents  that  colors  all  the  thought  and  expression  of 

the  early  Fathers. 

Clement  of  Rome  illustrates  this  condition  of 

things  perfectly.     As  bishop  of  the  church  of 

«  ^   ^^      Rome — and  his  letter  shows  that 
B.  2),  97  . 

"  bishop "    was,    in    his    time,    no 

more  and  no  other  than  "  presbyter  " — he  writes 
a  letter  to  the  church  at  Corinth.  The  Corin- 
thians, we  gather  from  the  letter,  had  been  treat- 
ing their  presbyters  with  scant  respect,  and  had 
even  deposed  some  of  them  from  office  without 
good  cause.  Clement  remonstrates  with  them, 
and  exhorts  them  to  a  more  Christian  course 
of  conduct.  Twice  he  quotes  from  "  the  words 
of  the  Lord  Jesus."  The  first  quotation  is :  "  Be 
ye  merciful,  that  ye  may  obtain  mercy;  forgive 
that  it  may  be  forgiven  to  you ;  as  ye  do,  so  shall 
it  be  done  unto  you;  as  ye  judge,  so  shall  ye  be 
judged;  as  ye  are  kind,  so  shall  kindness  be 
shown  to  you ;  with  what  measure  ye  mete,  with 
the  same  it  shall  be  measured  to  you  "  (chap. 
13).  The  second  quotation  is:  "Woe  to  that 
man!  It  were  better  for  him  that  he  had  never 
been  born,  than  that  he  should  cast  a  stumbling- 
block  before  one  of  my  elect.  Yea,  it  were  better 
for  him  that  a  mill-stone  should  be  hung  about  his 


THE    IDEA    OF    SCRIPTURE  3 1 

neck  and  he  should  be  sunk  in  the  depths  of  the 
sea,  than  that  he  should  cast  a  stumbling-block 
before  one  of  my  little  ones  "  (chap.  46). 

The  first  quotation  is  substantially  identical 
with  Matt.  5:7;  6:12-15;  y\2,  and  Luke  6: 
36-38,  but  it  is  not  verbally  identical  with  either. 
The  second  passage  corresponds  in  the  main  to 
Matt.  18:6;  26:24;  Mark  9:42,  and  Luke 
17:  2,  but  it  is  not  an  exact  quotation  of  any  pas- 
sage in  our  present  Gospels.  There  are  several 
possible  explanations  of  these  discrepancies. 
Clement  may  not  have  had  before  him  the  text  of 
the  Gospels ;  he  may  have  quoted  from  memory,^ 
being  satisfied  to  give  the  general  sense  of  the 
words  of  Jesus.  Or,  he  may  have  had  a  different 
text  from  any  that  has  survived.  Or,  again,  he 
may  have  had  a  different  collection  of  the  sayings 
of  our  Lord  from  either  of  the  canonical  Gospels. 
For  our  present  purpose,  it  is  not  important  to 
choose  between  these  possible  explanations;  in 
any  event,  he  was  quoting  "  the  words  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  "  as  final  authority,  which  is  all  that  it 
concerns  us  just  now  to  know. 

*  A  recent  popular  novel,  in  its  concluding  paragraph,  shows  how 
trusj:ing  to  memory  leads  to  curious  metamorphoses  of  the  text: 
'•  Maxwell  .  .  .  quoted  a  text  from  the  Scripture  in  a  low  voice — 
'  she  suffered  much,  so  much  shall  be  forgiven  of  her !  '  "  The 
writer  doubtless  supposed  that  he  was  citing  accurately  Luke  7  :  47. 


^2  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

As  to  the  Epistles,  Clement  makes  distinct  ref- 
erence to  Paul's  letters  to  the  Corinthian  church, 
and  repeatedly  quotes  from  them  and  paraphrases 
them.  Chap.  49  of  his  letter  is  a  plain  imita- 
tion of  I  Cor.  13.  He  is  thoroughly  familiar  with 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews ;  he  quotes  1:2,3 
accurately,  and  borrows  many  brief  phrases  to 
adorn  his  sentences.  He  knows  the  Epistle  to 
Titus,  to  the  Ephesians,  and  the  first  to  Timothy. 
And  this  sentence,  though  not  an  exact  quotation, 
could  never  have  been  written  save  by  a  care- 
ful student  of  Romans :  "  And  we  too,  being 
called  by  his  will  in  Christ  Jesus,  are  not  justified 
by  ourselves,  nor  by  our  own  wisdom,  or  under- 
standing, or  godliness,  or  works  that  we  have 
wrought  in  holiness  of  heart;  but  by  that  faith 
through  which,  from  the  beginning,  almighty 
God  has  justified  all  men ;  to  whom  be  glory  for 
ever  and  ever.  Amen"  (chap.  32;  cf.  Rom.  3  : 
20,  28,  etc.).  Nor  could  this  well  have  come 
from  one  who  had  not  carefully  read  the  First 
Epistle  of  John — "  The  blood  of  Jesus  Christ 
gained  for  the  whole  world  the  offer  of  the  grace 
of  repentance"  (chap.  8  ;  cf.  i  John  1:7; 
2  :  20). 

Clement's  use  of  the  apostolic  writings  shows 


THE   IDEA    OF    SCRIPTURE 


33 


that  he  put  them  in  a  class  by  themselves,  but  he     7 
seldom  quotes  from  them  with  the  exact  verbal 
accuracy  deemed  essential  in  our  times.     Rather,  j 
his  letter  is  full  of  echoes  of  Gospels  and  Epistles,  i 
which  testify  eloquently  to  the  care  with  which  he ; 
had  studied  them,  and  the  honor  in  which  he  held  j 
them.    This  is  exceedingly  significant,  as  Clement 
wrote  about  a.  d.  97,  say  about  the  time  of  the   ^^ 
composition  of  the  Apocalypse  and  perhaps  a  dec- 
ade before  the  Gospel  of  John  was  written.    That      i 
the  writings  later  held  to  be  canonical  were  al-       ' 
ready  so  highly  esteemed,  is  a  fact  that  many  (^  (^niA? 
writers  -have  passed  over  too  lightly.     It  is  true 
thatClement  never  cites  the  apostolic  writings 
as  Scripture,  with  the  formula  that  he  uses  for 
the  Old  Testament,  "  it  is  written,''  or  "  it  says," 
but  he  does  not  seem  to  have  esteemed  their  au- 
thority as  really  less  than  that  of  the  law  and  the 
prophets.    The  words  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  in  par- 
ticular,   he    regards    as    the    highest    possible 
authority. 

We  must  remember,  in  estimating  the  signifi- 
cance of  Clement's  use  of  the  New  Testament 
writings — and  this  remark  applies  equally  to  all 
the  early  Fathers — that  he  did  not  write  for  the 
purpose  of  telling  us  which  of  these  books  he  had 


34  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

and  valued,  and  that  he  probably  had  no  need  to 
tell  his  contemporaries.  What  we  learn  from 
him  is  purely  incidental  information,  and  we  have 
no  right  to  assume  that  he  tells  us  all  that  he 
knew.  Inferences  of  the  most  positive  nature  are 
often  drawn  from  the  silence  of  a  Father,  which 
accurate  reasoning  must  repudiate.  If  a  Father 
quotes  from  a  book,  that  proves  his  acquaintance 
with  it.  But  if  he  fails  to  quote  from  another 
book,  that  usually  proves  nothing.  Only  in  a 
rare  case  are  we  entitled  to  infer  that  silence  is 
equivalent  to  ignorance.  When  a  later  Father, 
like  Basil,  besprinkles  his  pages  with  quotations 
from  every  other  canonical  book,  and  omits  all 
mention  of  the  Apocalypse,  that  omission  may  no 
doubt  be  taken  to  be  significant.  It  cannot  prove 
ignorance,  in  his  case,  but  it  may  be  equivalent 
to  denial  of  the  canonicity  of  the  book. 

The  Didache,  or  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apos- 
tles, which  the  majority  of  scholars  now  assign 
to  the  year  lOO  or  earlier,  shows  a  considerable 
advance  in  accuracy  of  quotation.  Many  verses 
are  cited  from  the  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke 
with  almost  exact  verbal  accuracy.  The  varia- 
tions are  so  slight,  in  most  cases,  that  the  same 
English  sentence  will   accurately  translate  both 


THE    IDEA    OF    SCRIPTURE  35 

forms.     In  many  other  cases,  there  is  substantial 

correctness  of  quotation,  and  a  large  number  of 

brief  phrases  are  identical  with  our    ^  ^    ,  ^^ 

B.  5>.  100 

present  Greek  text  of  those  Gospels, 

such  as,  "  bless  those  that  curse  you,"  and  "  give 
not  that  which  is  holy  unto  dogs."  Although  a 
number  of  ingenious  theories  have  been  advanced 
to  explain  the  discrepancies  in  these  quotations, 
it  is  morally  certain  that  the  compiler  (or  com- 
pilers) of  this  document  had  before  him  (or 
them)  our  canonical  Gospels  of  Matthew  and 
Luke.  The  variations  from  the  text  of  the  evan- 
gelists are  not  difficult  of  explanation,  but  the  cor- 
respondences with  our  present  text  seem  inexpli- 
cable on  any  other  hypothesis.  For  it  is  evident 
that  when  one  writer  cites  accurately  the  words  of 
another,  he  must  have  been  acquainted  with  them ; 
while  a  slovenly  quotation  may  be  the  result,  not 
of  ignorance,  but  of  carelessness. 

There  are  also  in  the  Didache  certain  signifi- 
cant echoes  of  the  Gospel  of  John,  which  was 
probably  written  at  about  the  same  time.  Such 
phrases  as  "  Holy  Father,"  used  in  prayer  to 
God  (and  found  only  in  John  17  :  11);  "the 
vine,"  applied  to  Christ,  and  used  only  in  John 
15  :   1-8;   and  "perfect  her  [i  e.,  the  church]  in 


36  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

thy  love,"  a  phrase  found  only  in  i  John  4:  17 — 
though  scarcely  quotations  in  the  technical  sense, 
could  hardly  have  been  used  by  a  writer  who  was 
not  familiar  with  the  ideas  and  diction  peculiar 
to  John. 

What  for  our  present  inquiry  is  most  signifi- 
cant is  that  the  words  of  Jesus,  the  instruction 
of  the  apostles,  and  the  Old  Testament  are  cited 
freely  as  occasion  demands,  as  if  they  were  of 
equal  authority,  and  alike  demanded  the  faith 
and  obedience  of  all  Christians.  The  word 
yj  "  Scripture,"  or  the  formula  **  it  is  written  "  is 

used  in  neither  case.  Authority  is  assumed  for 
the  words  cited,  but  not  formally  asserted. 
Among  the  readers  addressed  there  was  nobody 
at  all  likely  to  question  the  authority  of  any  of 
these  words. 

We  find  the  same  phenomena  in  the  letters  of 
Ignatius  and  Polycarp.  There  is  no  occasion 
to  plunge  here  into  the  interminable  controversy 
that  has  been  waged  over  the  genuineness  of  the 
Ignatian  letters.  Scholars  are  now  pretty  well 
agreed  in  accepting  the  shorter  Greek  recension 
of  seven  letters  as  probably  genuine.  If  not  writ- 
ten by  Ignatius  himself,  they  must  have  been 
fabricated  soon  after  his  death.    For  our  present 


THE   IDEA   OF   SCRIPTURE  37 

purpose  it  matters  little  who  was  their  author, 
since  in  any  event  they  must  have  been  written 
in  the  first  half  of  the  second  century,  and  they 
are  a  valid  witness  to  the  way  in  which  Christians 
of  that  time  looked  at  the  writings  of  the  apostles. 
If  they  were  written  by  Ignatius  ^  ^^  ^^^ 
himself,  their  date  cannot  well  be 
later  than  120,  since  his  martyrdom  cannot  with 
good  reason  be  placed  later  than  that.  Indeed,  the 
only  tradition  about  his  death  is  that  he  suffered 
in  the  reign  of  Trajan,  who  died  in  117. 

Ignatius,  in  his  letter  to  the  Ephesians,  refers 
in  unmistakable  terms  to  Paul's  letter  to  the 
same  church :  "  Ye  are  initiated  into  the  mys- 
teries of  the  gospel  with  Paul  .  .  .  who  in  all  his 
epistle  makes  mention  of  you  in  Christ  Jesus" 
(chap.  12).  He  shows  unmistakable  familiarity 
with  First  Corinthians:  "Let  my  spirit  be  ac- 
counted as  nothing  for  the  sake  of  the  cross, 
which  is  a  stumbling-block  to  those  that  do  not 
believe,  but  to  us  salvation  and  life  eternal. 
Where  is  the  wise  man?  where  is  the  disputer?  " 
(chap.  18;  cf.  I  Cor.  i  :  i8,  20.)  Besides  a 
few  such  formal  quotations,  there  are  numerous 
references  to  other  apostolic  writings  and  echoes 
of  the  Gospels,  such  as  the  following :   "  The  last 


i'!>^^ 


;^8  OUR   NEW   TESTAMENT 

times  are  come  upon  us  "  ( i  John  2  :  18)  ;  "the 
wrath  to  come"  (Matt.  3:7);  "the  tree  is 
made  manifest  by  its  fruit"  (Matt.  12  :  ^^)  ; 
"  that  we  may  be  his  temples  "  (i  Cor.  6  :  19) ; 
"  shall  not  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God  "  (i  Cor. 
6:9,  10)  ;  "  for  this  end  did  the  Lord  suffer 
the  ointment  to  be  poured  upon  his  head  "  (John 
12  :  7).  And  in  the  letter  to  the  Romans  occurs 
another  exact  quotation  from  the  Gospel :  "  For 
what  shall  a  man  be  profited  if  he  gain  the  whole 
world,  but  lose  his  own  life  "    (Matt.  16  :  26). 

The  most  definite  and  precise  statement  of  the 
attitude  of  Ignatius  to  both  Testaments  is  in  his 
letter  to  the  Philadelphians :  "  When  I  heard 
some  saying,  If  I  do  not  find  it  in  the  ancient 
Scriptures,  I  will  not  believe  the  Gospel ;  on  my 
saying  to  them.  It  is  written,  they  answered  me. 
That  remains  to  be  proved.  But  to  me  Jesus 
Christ  is  in  the  place  of  all  that  is  ancient;  his 
cross  and  death  and  resurrection,  and  the  faith 
which  is  by  him,  are  undefiled  monuments  of 
antiquity;  by  which  I  desire,  through  your 
prayers,  to  be  justified  "  (chap.  8). 

The  question  of  canonicity,  however,  was  not 
yet  so  much  as  mentioned,  and  in  one  case  Igna- 
tius quotes   (according  to  Jerome)   from  a  lost 


THE   IDEA    OF    SCRIPTURE  39 

Gospel  of  the  Nazarenes :  "  When,  for  instance, 
he  came  to  those  who  were  with  Peter,  he  said 
to  them,  *  Lay  hold,  handle  me,  and  see  that  I  am 
not  an  incorporeal  spirit '  "  {To  the  Smyrneans, 
chap.   3),  which  is  a  variant  reading  of  Luke 

24  :  39. 

Nothing  illustrates  better  the  change  that  took 
place  in  the  treatment  of  the  apostolic  writings, 
than  a  comparison  of  the  shorter  recension  of  the 
Ignatian  letters  with  the  longer — a  half-century 
later  at  least.  In  the  shorter  recension,  the  formal 
and  exact  quotations  are  few,  not  more  than  one 
or  two  in  a  letter,  and  the  other  allusions  are 
confined  for  the  most  part  to  brief  phrases  or 
clauses.  The  chief  thing  that  makes  the  later 
recension  longer,  is  that  these  brief  references, 
these  echoing  phrases  have  been  expanded  into 
long  and  exact  quotations;  and  where  there  is 
neither  quotation  nor  allusion  in  the  shorter 
form,  passages  more  or  less  apposite  have  been 
carefully  sought  out  and  inserted.  In  other 
words,  take  the  longer  recension  and  erase  from 
it  the  quotations  from  the  New  Testament,  and 
there  is  left  substantially  the  shorter  text!  The 
fact  is  eloquent.  We  are  shown,  as  by  an  object- 
lesson,  how  the  appreciation  of  the  apostolic  writ- 


40  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

ings  as  Scripture  was  growing  in  the  second 
century. 

We  find  in  the  letter  of  Polycarp  to  the  Philip- 
pians  (not  later  than  150),  as  we  might  expect,  a 
definite  progress  in  precision  of 
quotation,  marking  accurately  the 
increased  esteem  in  which  the  apostolic  writings 
had  come  to  be  held.  This  letter,  of  about  twenty- 
five  hundred  words,  contains  a  dozen  citations  from 
the  New  Testament  that  are  either  verbally  exact 
or  nearly  so,  and  a  score  or  two  of  brief  phrases, 
such  as:  "God  is  not  mocked"  (Gal.  6:7); 
"  we  shall  also  reign  with  him  "  (2  Tim.  2  :  12)  ; 
"  let  not  the  sun  go  down  upon  your  wrath  " 
(Eph.  4  :  26).  The  writings  from  which  Poly- 
carp quotes  are:  the  Gospels  of  Matthew  and 
Luke,  the  Acts,  Romans,  both  Epistles  to  the  Cor- 
inthians, Galatians,  Ephesians,  both  letters  to  the 
Thessalonians,  and  both  to  Timothy.  Besides 
these,  the  first  Epistle  of  John  is  quoted  or  un- 
mistakably referred  to  not  fewer  than  eleven 
times.  Direct  mention  is  made  (chap.  3)  of 
Paul's  letter  to  the  Philippians,  and  there  are  sev- 
eral possible  allusions  to  this  epistle,  but  no  formal 
quotation  from  it. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  in  one  case  Poly- 


THE   IDEA   OF   SCRIPTURE  4I 

carp  quotes  from  Tobit,  precisely  as  he  does  from 
Psalms  and  Isaiah.  Here  is  an  unconscious  testi- 
mony that  not  merely  the  New  Testament  Canon, 
but  the  Old  Testament  as  well,  was  still  unsettled/ 
Polycarp  does  not  call  any  of  his  authorities 
''  Scripture,"  but  he  evidently  treats  them  as  such, 
and  as  equally  authoritative.  The  idea  that  the?  <Jir\if-U/^ 
apostolic  writings  are  Scripture,  and  are  generally  \  "^A-—^- 
conceded  to  possess  that  character  and  authority, 
must  be  assumed  to  be  latent  in  the  consciousness 
of  all  Christians  by  the  year  150,  in  order  to  ex- 
plain the  tone  and  manner  in  which  the  Fathers 
cite  from  their  text,  and  still  more  from  the  way 
in  which  they  have  saturated  their  minds  with 
the  ideas  and  vocabulary  of  the  New  Testament. 
Nothing  had  yet  occurred  to  call  forth  a  formal 
statement  of  this  latent  idea,  and  it  therefore 
remained  latent,  but  not  the  less  influential.  It 
has  not  yet  been  definitely  decided  what  and  how 
many  writings  shall  be  so  accepted — the  time  for 

*This  is  an  investigation  of  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament 
alone,  and  ought  not  to  be  complicated  by  the  admission  of  matters 
pertaining  to  the  Old  Testament  Canon.  But  it  may  be  pointed  out, 
as  additional  illustration  of  the  uncertain  limits  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment Canon,  that  Jesus  himself  quoted  from  the  Wisdom  of  God, 
according  to  Luke,  11  :  49,  50;  that  Jude  and  Second  Peter  quote 
from  the  book  of  Enoch;  that  Irenaeus  quotes  at  length  from  the 
prophecy  of  Baruch  {Adv.  Haer..  v.  35).  These  instances  might  be 
greatly  multiplied,  but  are  sufficient  to  make  clear  the  fact. 


42  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

raising  that  question  had  not  arrived — but  that 
a  group  of  writings  claiming  apostoHc  origin  and 
sanction  is  now  received  as  equally  authoritative 
with  the  Old  Testament  cannot  well  be  doubted. 
It  took  not  more  than  half  a  century  for  the  de- 
velopment of  this  idea  and  its  general  acceptance. 

We  see  the  final  step  taken  and  the  formal_ac- 
knowledgment  made  in  the  so-called  Epistle  of 

_   _  Barnabas.     Thoug:h  it  is  now  cer- 

tarn  that  this  is  not  a  writing  oi 
the  apostolic  age,  and  that  the  Barnabas  of  the 
Acts  can  therefore  have  had  no  connection  with 
it,  it  was  long  believed  to  be  from  his  pen,  and  on 
that  ground  was  widely  accepted  as  Scripture. 
It  cannot  be  dated  much,  if  any,  later  than  the 
year  150,  and  is  therefore  a  witness  of  about  the 
same  time  as  Polycarp's  letter.  The  greater  part 
^;  -■  of  the  quotations  in  the  first  section  of  Barnabas 
\J^'*_--\  are  from  the  Old  Testament,  and  this  makes  all 
^.^^-^^  ^  \  the  more  significant  the  citation  at  the  close  of 
\chap.  4,  with  the  formula  "  it  is  written,"  of  our 
|Lord's  words  in  Matt.  22:  14:  "Many  are 
called,  but  few  are  chosen."  This  is  the  first  in- 
stance in  a  Christian  writer  of  the  formal  recogni- 
tion of  a  New  Testament  writing  as  Scripture, 
in  the  same  sense  as  the  Old   Testament.     It 


>V^ 


THE  IDEA   OF   SCRIPTURE  43 

differs,  however,  only  in  this  expHcit  formahty, 
from  the  quotations  in  Polycarp,  and  even  in 
Ignatius  and  the  Didache,  all  of  which,  as  we 
have  seen,  actually  treat  the  New  Testament  as 
Scripture,  without  calling  it  by  that  name. 

That  these  are  no  rash  assertions,  or  unwar- 
ranted inferences,  becomes  evident  when  we  study 
the  Apologies  of  Justin,  called  the  Martyr.  They 
are  little  later  than  Barnabas;  in  fact,  the  first 
Apology  is  probably  a  substantially  contempora- 
neous document.  In  these  writings  the  quota- 
tions from  the  New  Testament  are 

S»  W*  150 
at  once  more  restricted  and  more 

extensive  than  in  any  previous  literature  of  the 
period.  They  are  more  restricted,  in  that  the 
apologetic  purpose  of  Justin  leads  him  to  com- 
pare the  teachings  of  Christ  with  those  among 
the  heathen  who  professed  to  teach  the  way  of 
life,  and  so  his  quotations  are  wholly  from  the 
Gospels.  They  are  more  extensive  in  that  his 
citations  are  more  numerous  and  elaborate  than 
those  in  any  preceding  writer.  The  quotations 
from  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  and  the  clear  al- 
lusions to  it,  in  all  the  Apostolic  Fathers,  amount 
only  to  forty-nine,  while  Justin  alone  has  forty- 
three.    The  Gospel  of  Luke  is  more  or  less  clearly 


44  OVR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

cited  by  the  Apostolic  Fathers  sixteen  times,  while 
Justin  quotes  from  it,  with  equal  or  greater  clear- 
ness, nineteen  times.  The  full  discussion  of  Jus- 
tin's quotations,  however,  belongs  to  the  next 
chapter. 

In  the  works  of  Irenaeus  we  find  the  idea  of 
the  scriptural  character  and  authority  of  the 
apostolic  writings  held  as  a  doctrine  of  the 
Catholic  Church.  His  great  treatise  "  Against 
Heresies "  has  survived  only  in  an  imperfect 
Latin  version;    but  it  was  composed  about  185, 

_  and  the  imperfections  of  the  extant 

B.  !)♦  185      ,  , 

form  do  not  appreciably  mar  its 

value  as  a  witness  in  our  matter.  Throughout 
the  treatise,  Irenaeus  (who  was  bishop  of  Lyons, 
and  was  a  martyr  there  in  the  fiery  persecution 
under  Marcus  Aurelius,  about  190)  speaks,  as  of  a 
thing  uncontroverted  and  incontrovertible  among 
Christians,  of  the  writings  of  evangelists  and 
apostles  as  constituting  Scripture  along  with  the 
law  and  the  prophets  (i.  3,  6;  8,  i ;  9,  i). 
He  speaks  of  the  "  sacred  Scriptures "  as  in- 
cluding the  parables  (11.  27,  i).  He  says  that 
heretics  are  "  confuted  from  the  Scriptures,"  and 
immediately  quotes  from  the  writings  of  Paul  (2 
Cor.  2  :  6)  to  confute  them.    Against  Cerinthus 


THE    IDEA    OF    SCRIPTURE  45 

and  those  Gnostics  who  would  reject  the  Gospel 
of  John  he  argues  that  "  it  is  not  possible  that  the 
Gospels  can  be  either  more  nor  fewer  in  number 
than  they  are,"  and  proceeds  to  give  various 
mystical  reasons  for  this  number :  there  are  four 
zones  of  the  world,  and  four  principal  winds,  so 
it  is  fitting  that  the  church  should  have  four  pil- 
lars. The  "  winged  creatures  "  of  Isaiah  typified 
the  gospel,  and  as  the  creatures  were  quadriform, 
so  should  the  gospel  be  quadriform.  God  has 
given  four  covenants  to  the  race,  hence  there 
should  be  four  Gospels.  The  reasoning  of  Ire- 
nseus  we  may  find  fantastic  and  inconclusive,  not 
to  say  childish,  but  this  defect  does  not  invalidate 
his  implicit  testimony  to  this  fact:  in  his  day 
to  reject  any  one  of  our  four  canonical  Gospels 
was  reckoned  the  mark  of  a  heretic. 

But  perhaps  the  most  interesting,  and  certainly 
the  most  significant,  thing  to  be  gleaned  from 
Iren^us  is  his  idea  of  the  relation  of  the  Scrip- 
tures to  the  church.  There  has  been,  he  contends, 
a  perpetual  succession  of  bishops  in  the  churches 
founded  by  the  apostles,  especially  in  the  church 
"founded  and  organized  at  Rome  by  the  two 
most  glorious  apostles,  Peter  and  Paul "  (m. 
3,  i).     The  church  has  been  made  the  sole  de- 


46  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

pository  of  truth  (iii.  4,  i).  True  knowledge 
(as  distinguished  from  the  false  gnosis  of  the 
heretics)  consists  in  the  doctrine  of  the  apostles. 
It  is  to  be  discovered  through  reading  the  Scrip- 
tures, without  falsification,  and  a  diligent  expo- 
sition in  harmony  with  the  Scriptures  (iv. 
33,  8).  To  the  question  that  would  naturally 
suggest  itself,  What  are  the  Scriptures  ?  Irenaeus 
does  not  directly  reply  by  giving  a  list,  but  quotes 
with  manifest  approval  the  words  of  "  a  presby- 
ter,'' whom  some  editors  have  conjectured  to  be 
Polycarp :  "  And  then  shall  every  word  also  seem 
consistent  to  him,  if  he  for  his  part  diligently  read 
the  Scriptures  in  company  with  those  who  are 
presbyters  in  the  Church,  among  whom  is  the 
apostolic  doctrine  as  I  have  pointed  out "    (iv^ 

32,  i). 

From  these  scattered  remarks  of  Irenaeus  it 
is  clear  that  his  doctrine,  reduced  to  systematic 
statement,  was  about  as  follows:  The  Catholic 
Church,  distinguishable  by  its  regular  succession 
of  bishops  from  the  apostles,  was  made  by  the 
apostles  the  sole  depository  of  their  teaching,  i.  e., 
the  truth.  It  is  the  ancient  and  trustworthy  wit- 
ness to  the  doctrine  of  the  apostles,  and  the  cus- 
todian  of  their   writings.      These   writings   are 


THE   IDEA   OF   SCRIPTURE 


47 


authenticated  by  being  publicly  read  by  the  pres- 
byters. Whoever  should  accept  as  Scripture 
those  writings,  and  those  only,  thus  approved  by 
public  reading  in  the  churches,  might  be  sure  that 
he  had  the  truth.  Here  we  have  stated  for  the 
first  time  the  germinal  idea  of  the  Canon,  and 
also  its  genetic  principle:  the  Canon  consists  of 
those  writings  that  have  been  approved  by  the 
practice  of  the  churches  in  having  them  publicly 
read  by  the  presbyters.  The  usage  of  the 
churches  is  thus  definitely  stated  by  Irenseus  to 
be  the  test  of  what  does  and  what  does  not  con- 
stitute Scripture. 

While  this  usage  of  the  New  Testament  writ- 
ings as  Scripture  thus  prevails  from  the  first 
among  Christian  writers,  and  the  assertion  of 
their  character  as  such  begins  about  the  middle 
of  the  second  century,  we  do  not  find,  and  should 
not  expect  to  find,  any  doctrine  of  the  inspiration 
of  these  writings  in  the  early  Fathers.  The  im- 
plied basis  of  their  acceptance  as  authoritative  is, 
of  course,  a  belief  that  they  are  in  some  special 
sense  the  word  of  God,  and  not  the  word  of  man 
alone,  but  we  should  naturally  expect  the  accept- 
ance first  and  the  dogmatic  justification  of  it 
later.    That  is  precisely  what  we  do  find. 


y 


48  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

irr/ini^^'^^*  The  first  writer  to  speak  explicitly  on  this  ques- 
tion is  Justin.  In  his  first  Apology  ^  he  asserts 
inspiration  as  a  fact,  but  is  content  to  treat  the 
question  with  great  brevity :  "  But  when  you  hear 
the  utterances  of  the  prophets,  spoken  as  it  were 
personally,  you  must  not  suppose  that  they  are 
spoken  by  the  inspired  themselves,  but  by  the 
divine  Word  who  moves  them."  In  the  "  Exhor- 
tation to  the  Greeks,"  which  was  formerly  attrib- 
uted to  Justin,  but  is  now  believed  to  be  the 
work  of  Tatian,  his  pupil,  the  subject  is  treated  at 
greater  length :  ''  For  neither  by  nature  nor  by 
human  conception  is  it  possible  for  men  to  know 
things  so  great  and  divine,  but  by  the  gift  which 
then  descended  from  above  upon  the  holy  men, 
who  had  no  need  of  rhetorical  art,  nor  of  utter- 
ing anything  in  a  contentious  or  quarrelsome 
manner,  but  to  present  themselves  pure  to  the 
energy  of  the  divine  Spirit,  in  order  that  the 
divine  plectrum  itself,  descending  from  heaven, 
and  using  righteous  men  as  an  instrument  and 
like  a  harp  or  lyre,  might  reveal  to  us  the  knowl- 
edge of  things  divine  and  heavenly."  ^  This 
teaching  is  not  in  so  many  words  applied  specific- 
ally to  the   New  Testament,   but  the  apostolic 

1  I.  36.  2  c.  8. 


THE   IDEA   OF   SCRIPTURE  49 

writings  are  quoted  on  equal  terms  with  the 
"  prophets,"  and  it  is  evident  that  Tatian  held 
the  same  views  regarding  their  inspiration. 

In  the  last  decades  of  the  second  century  the 
doctrine  of  inspiration  of  the  apostolic  writings 
becomes  clear  and  unmistakable.  Irenaeus  not 
only  quotes  them  repeatedly  as  Scripture,  but  ex- 
plicitly declares  that  we  should  be  "  most  properly 
assured  that  the  Scriptures  are  indeed  perfect, 
since  they  were  spoken  by  the  Word  of  God  and 
his  Spirit."  ^  He  argues  vehemently,  if  not 
cogently,  that  one  God  was  the  author  of  both 
Testaments — this  in  opposition  to  certain  Gnos- 
tics who  maintained  that  the  Old  Testament  is  not 
of  divine  origin  and  authority,  but  was  inspired, 
at  least  in  part,  by  the  Demiurge.  It  had  already 
come  about  that  the  authority  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment was  more  in  need  of  assertion  and  defense 
among  Christians  than  the  New. 

Theophilus  of  Antioch  (i8o),  an  Eastern  con- 
temporary of  Irenaeus,  is  not  less  explicit :  "  But 
men  of  God,  carrying  in  them  a  holy  spirit  or 
borne  along  by  the  Spirit  (Trveu/iaroipopoe)  and 
becoming  prophets,  being  inspired  and  made  wise 
by  God,  became  God-taught  and  holy  and  right- 

^  Adv.  Haer,,  ii.  28,  2. 
D 


50  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

eous."  ^  And  again :  "  Moreover,  concerning  the 
righteousness  that  the  law  enjoins,  confirmatory 
utterances  are  found  both  with  the  prophets  and 
in  the  Gospels,  because  they  all  spoke  inspired  by 
one  Spirit  of  God."  ^  Elsewhere  he  calls  John 
"  one  of  the  spirit-bearing  men,'*  and  quotes  from 
the  Gospel  as  of  higher  religious  authority  than 
the  Old  Testament.  It  is  plain  therefore  that  the 
East  and  the  West  were  fully  agreed  on  this 
matter  considerably  before  the  close  of  the  second 
century. 

It  would  seem  also  that  there  was  early  de- 
veloped as  "  high  "  a  doctrine  of  inspiration  as 
that  held  by  modern  theologians.  Gaius,  rather 
earlier  than  later,  had  said,  "  For  either  they  do 
not  believe  that  the  divine  Scriptures  were  dic- 
tated by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  thus  are  infidels; 
or  they  think  themselves  wiser  than  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  what  are  they  then  but  demoniacs?  "  ^ 
This  is  surely  verbal  inspiration  in  its  extreme 
form.  But  so  rigid  a  theory  of  the  Spirit's  action, 
while  held  by  some  of  the  Fathers,  cannot  be  said 
to  have  gained  general  acceptance.  The  figure 
of  the  musician  and  his  instrument,  used  by  Ta- 

^  Ad  Antol.,  ii.  9.  ^  Ibid.,  iii.   12;    ii.  22. 

*Eusebius,  H.  E,,  v.  28. 


THE   IDEA   OF   SCRIPTURE  5 1 

tian  in  the  passage  already  cited,  became  the 
favorite  illustration  of  patristic  literature,  and 
stands  in  lieu  of  a  more  formal  statement  of  the 
doctrine. 

So  Athenagoras,  writing  about  177,  remarks: 
"  We  have  for  witnesses  of  the  things  we  appre- 
hend and  believe,  prophets,  men  who  have  pro- 
nounced concerning  God  and  the  things  of  God, 
guided  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  And  you  too,  will 
admit  .  .  .  that  it  would  be  irrational  for  us  to 
cease  to  believe  in  the  Spirit  from  God,  who  moved 
the  mouths  of  the  prophets  like  musical  instru- 
ments. .  .  Prophets  who,  lifted  in  ecstasy  above 
the  natural  operations  of  their  minds  by  the  im- 
pulses of  the  divine  Spirit,  uttered  the  things 
with  which  they  were  inspired,  the  Spirit  making 
use  of  them  as  a  flute-player  breathes  into  a 
flute."  ^  Clement  of  Alexandria  makes  a  dif- 
ferent and  striking  use  of  music  to  illustrate  the 
agreement  of  the  writers  of  Scripture :  ^  "  You 
may  take  music  in  another  way,  as  the  ecclesiasti- 
cal symphony  at  once  of  the  law  and  the  prophets, 
and  the  apostles  along  with  the  Gospel."  And  his 
faith  in  the  sufficiency,  not  to  say  inerrancy,  of 
these  writings  is  sufficiently  evidenced  by  this  re- 

*  "  Plea  for  Christians,"  c.  7,  9.  2  gtrom.,  vi.  11. 


52  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

mark :  ^  "  But  those  who  are  ready  to  toil  in  the 
most  excellent  pursuits,  will  not  desist  from  the 
search  after  truth,  till  they  get  the  demonstration 
from  the  Scriptures  themselves."  It  is  worth 
while  to  note  also  that  Clement  is  the  first  to 
apply  to  the  New  Testament  Scriptures  and  their 
writers  the  term  afterward  so  widely  used  in  theo- 
logical literature  for  inspiration,  God-breathed 
(deoTri^euaro^) , 

With  the  third  century  the  doctrine  of  inspira- 
tion must  be  regarded  as  finally  established  as  a 
fundamental  Christian  teaching.  In  the  writings 
of  Tertullian,  Origen,  Cyprian,  Hippolytus,  it  is 
so  prominent  that  no  reader  of  these  Fathers  can 
fail  to  be  impressed  by  it,  and  quotations  would  be 
superfluous.  But  we  have  also  an  unconscious 
testimony  to  the  estimate  placed  on  the  Scrip- 
tures, by  the  beginning  in  the  second  century  of 
their  systematic  study  and  the  writing  of  com- 
mentaries on  them.  If  we  may  believe  tradition, 
the  Gnostic  Heracleon  wrote  a  commentary  on 
John's  Gospel  about  170.  The  method  of  inter- 
pretation that  was  adopted  from  the  first,  also 
points  unmistakably  in  the  same  direction.  All 
the    early    commentators    used    the    allegorical 

*  Strom.,  vii.  i6. 


THE   IDEA   OF    SCRIPTURE  53 

method,  and  as  Sanday  well  says/  ''  Only  in  a 
book  that  is  regarded  as  possessing  a  peculiar 
sacredness  and  authority  is  the  attempt  likely  to 
be  made  to  ehcit  a  sense  from  the  words  other 
than  the  obvious  and  literal."  The  Fathers  con- 
tinually accuse  heretics  of  perverting  Scripture, 
but  could  there  be  more  serious  perversion  than 
the  allegorizing  of  the  orthodox  Fathers  them- 
selves? Let  any  one  read  Origen  on  John,  for 
example,  and  declare  in  favor  of  orthodoxy — if 
he  can. 

^  "  Inspiration,"  p.  39. 


Ill 

THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  A  COLLECTION 


Ill 


EARLY  Christian  literature  is  on  the  one 
hand  the  product  of  the  Christian  Hfe,  and 
on  the  other  the  product  of  the  Christian  Church. 
The  study  of  that  Hterature  in  all  its  phases  is 
inseparable  from  the  study  of  the  gradual  de- 
velopment of  the  Christian  life  and  of  those  ec- 
clesiastical institutions  in  which  it  found  expres- 
sion. The  investigation  of  the  Canon  in  par- 
ticular must  be  regarded  as  part  and  parcel  of 
the  history  of  the  Catholic  Church,  which  was 
developed  in  the  second  century. 


And,  in  examining  the  literature  of  the  second n    \^^?^-^ 
century,  as  has  already  been  hinted,  it  is  impor-^ 
tant  that  we  do  not  expect  too  much.    It  was  not 
an  age  of  great  literary  activity  among  Christians, 
but  of  missionary  effort.    Of  the  extent  and  fruit-  \ 
fulness  of  that  missionary  activity,  Harnack  has 
lately  furnished  impressive  evidence.^    Men  were^ 
too  much  occupied  with  the  oral  proclamation  of 
the  gospel  at  first  to  give  much  attention  to  the    \ 

^Die  Mission  und  Ausbreitung  des  Christenthums  in  den  ersien 
drei  Jahrhunderten,  Leipzig,  1902;  English  translation  in  two  vol- 
umes, London,   1904,  entitled  "  The  Expansion  of  Christianity." 

57 


58  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

composition  of  homiletic  writings,  and  the  time 
for  doctrinal  treatises  had  not  yet  come.  What 
Papias  tells  us  of  his  preference  for  oral  tradi- 
tion over  the  written  word  was  doubtless  char- 
acteristic of  the  age/  And  we  can  easily  under- 
stand how  men  should  have  preferred  listening 
to  those  who  had  been  actual  companions  and 
disciples  of  the  apostles  to  reading  about  the 
same  things  in  books.  Besides,  the  books  were  at 
first  few  and  not  accessible  to  all. 

Many  lamentations  have  been  uttered  over  the 
lost  treasures  of  the  Christian  literature  of  this 
period.  For  example :  "  It  may  have  contained 
many  childish,  many  grotesque,  many  foolish 
things.  .  .  But  it  must  have  contained  passages 
of  inspired  beauty  and  grandeur,  and  these  the 
world  can  ill  afford  to  lose."  ^  These  regrets  do 
not  seem  to  be  justified  by  anything  found  in  the 
literature  that  has  survived.  We  search  in  vain 
through  the  Fathers  of  this  period  for  "  pas- 
sages of  inspired  beauty  and  grandeur."  Writers 
deceive  themselves  even  more  than  they  mislead 

^  "  If  then  any  one  came,  who  had  been  a  follower  of  the  elders, 
I  questioned  him  in  regard  to  the  words  of  the  elders.  .  .  For  I  did 
not  think  that  what  was  to  be  gotten  from  the  books  would  profit 
me  as  much  as  what  came  from  the  living  and  abiding  voice." 
Quoted  by  Eusebius,  H.  E.,  iii.  38.  4. 

2  "  Formation  of  the  New  Testament,"  Ferris,  p.  214. 


THE   BEGINNINGS   OF   A    COLLECTION  59 

Others  by  such  unfounded  remarks.  Whether  we 
estimate  the  value  of  lost  books  from  the  frag- 
ments of  them  that  have  survived  in  the  form  of 
quotations  by  the  Fathers  whose  writings  we  have, 
or  by  the  character  of  the  few  specimens  that  have 
been  recently  recovered,  the  conclusion  is  war- 
ranted that  the  cream  of  the  early  literature  has 
been  preserved,  and  that  the  recovery  of  the  lost 
portion  would  gratify  curiosity  far  more  than  ex- 
tend knowledge  or  edify  the  church.  As  for  any 
supposed  invaluable  books  that  have  vanished 
without  leaving  a  trace,  the  existence  of  such 
books  is  an  unproved  hypothesis,  and  a  most 
improbable  one. 

That  which  remains,  we  may  conclude,  will 
afford  a  fair  test  of  the  spiritual  value  of  what  has 
been  lost.  No  reader  who  has  learned  for  him- 
self the  spiritual  barrenness  of  books  like  the 
Shepherd,  once  regarded  by  no  inconsiderable 
portion  of  the  church  as  Scripture,  and  the  in- 
finitesimal increment  of  value  added  by  the  recent 
discovery  of  documents  like  the  Didache  and  the 
Gospel  of  Peter,  can  be  easily  persuaded  that  the 
world  would  be  made  wiser  or  better,  or  that  a 
single  hungry  soul  would  be  fed  by  the  recovery 
of  every  lost  writing  of  the  second  century.    That 


60  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

we  have  suffered  any  irreparable  loss,  scholars 
will  be  slow  to  believe,  and  still  slower  to  assert. 
Let  us  comfort  ourselves,  and  no  longer  mourn  the 
loss  of  these  purely  imaginary  treasures  of  Chris- 
tian antiquity,  and  save  our  tears  for  some  real 
sorrow — such  as  failure  to  understand  correctly 
the  literature  that  is  actually  in  our  possession. 

There  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  the  Gos- 
pels were  not  the  earliest  apostolic  writings  to  be 
read  in  public,  but  rather  the  Pauline  Epistles. 
So  far  as  we  know,  the  letters  of  Paul  to  the 
churches  were  the  earliest  Christian  literature. 
Ramsay  has  plausibly  argued  that,  in  a  literary 
age  like  the  first  century,  the  process  of  reducing 
the  oral  gospel  to  writing  must  have  begun  the 
very  year  of  the  crucifixion  of  Jesus — fragmentary 
records  of  sayings  and  doings  at  first ^  When 
Luke  wrote  there  were  in  existence  "  many  "  such 
attempts,  and  this  can  hardly  be  restricted  to  the 
Gospel  of  Mark  and  another  unknown  "  source," 
which  are  all  that  critics  can  now  definitely  trace 
in  the  third  Gospel.  But  however  plausible  this 
reasoning  may  be,  it  is  purely  a  priori,  and  is  un- 
supported by  a  single  positive  fact.  Not  a  line  of 
such  writing  has  survived,  nor  even  a  certain 

*  "  Letters  to  the  Seven  Churches,"  pp.  4-6. 


THE   BEGINNINGS   OF   A    COLLECTION  6l 

reference  to  any  such  composition.  We  repeat: 
so  far  as  our  knowledge  goes,  Paul's  letters  are 
the  earliest  Christian  literature. 

The  conjecture  that  these  letters  were  the  first 
Christian  writings  to  be  publicly  read,  does  not 
depend  for  credibility  merely  on  the  supposed  fact 
that  they  were  composed  several  decades  earlier 
than  any  Gospel,  but  upon  the  unquestionable  fact 
that  they  were  in  large  part  written  for  the  ex- 
press purpose  of  being  publicly  read  in  the  churches 
to  which  they  were  sent,  while  the  Gospels  dis- 
close no  such  apparent  purpose.  Indeed,  the 
Gospel  of  Luke,  from  its  dedication  to  the  "  most 
excellent  Theophilus  "  would  seem  to  have  been 
intended  rather  for  private  instruction  than  for 
public  or  liturgical  reading.  But  reading  to  the 
whole  church  is  evidently  the  intent  in  all  the 
apostolic  letters,  and  especially  in  those  of  Paul. 
That  was  the  only  practicable  way,  so  far  as  we 
can  see,  by  w^hich  their  contents  could  be  com- 
municated to  the  whole  church.^  The  importance 
of  these  letters,  and  the  value  that  would  be  from 
the  first  attached  to  them,  would  lead  most  nat- 

^  Not  only  do  the  general  contents  of  the  Epistles  necessarily 
imply  the  public  reading  of  them  to  the  churches,  but  the  salutations 
in  the  final  chapters  of  Romans,  for  example,  could  have  been  con- 
veyed so  well  in  no  other  way  (Rom.  i6  :  s,  22,  23). 


Zj 


62  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

urally  to  their  careful  preservation  and  repeated 
public  reading. 

In  the  case  of  several  Pauline  letters,  we  can 
get  out  of  the  region  of  conjecture  into  that  of 
solid  fact.  At  the  close  of  the  first  letter  to  the 
Thessalonians,  the  apostle  says,  "  I  adjure  you 
by  the  Lord,  that  this  epistle  be  read  unto  all 
the  holy  brethren"  (i  Thess.  5  :  27).  He  re- 
gards the  matter  of  the  public  reading  as  so  im- 
portant that  he  uses  the  formula  of  the  Jewish 
courts  for  administering  an  oath.  In  the  letter 
to  the  Colossians  we  find  this :  "  And  when  this 
epistle  hath  been  read  among  you,  cause  that  it 
be  read  also  in  the  church  of  the  Laodiceans; 
and  that  ye  also  read  the  epistle  from  Laodicea  "  ^ 
(Col.  4  :  16).  Here  not  only  the  public  reading 
of  letters,  but  their  interchange  between  churches 
is  provided  for.  It  is  true  that  many  scholars 
of  high  authority  dispute  the  Pauline  authorship 
of  the  letter  to  the  Colossians.  Supposing  them 
for  the  moment  to  be  right,  then  at  the  very  least 
we  have  here  testimony  from  the  early  part  of  the 
second  century  that  the  interchange  and  public 

^  Whether  this  "  epistle  from  Laodicea "  is  a  lost  letter  of  the 
apostle,  or  is  to  be  identified  with  some  surviving  epistle,  e.  g., 
Ephesians,  is  a  question  long  debated  and  still  unsettled.  See  the 
commentaries  of  EUicott  and  Lightfoot  on  this  passage. 


THE    BEGINNINGS    OF    A    COLLECTION  63 

jreading  of  Paul's  letters  were  already  established 
practices/  which  is  the  very  thing  we  are  just 
now  most  concerned  to  know. 

Other  letters  of  Paul  had  this  encyclical  char- 
acter, notably  Galatians,  which  is  explicitly  ad- 
dressed to  all  the  churches  of  a  large  region ;  and 
this  holds  good  whatever  view  we  take  of  the 
meaning  of  "  Galatia  "  in  Paul's  day.  It  is  highly 
probable  that  the  letters  to  the  Ephesians  and 
Philippians — especially  the  former,  which  in  some 
early  Fathers  and  MSS  is  called  the  Epistle  to 
Laodicea — had  also  this  encyclical  character. 
Other  New  Testament  writings  were  doubtless 
written  for  public  reading.  That  such  is  the  case 
with  the  Apocalypse  is  clearly  indicated  by  i  :  3, 
as  well  as  by  the  fact  that  its  introductory  sec- 
tion consists  of  letters  to  seven  representative 
churches  of  Asia. 

The  originals  of  letters  so  valuable  and  so 
highly  prized  as  these  certainly  were  would  be 
jealously  preserved  by  the  churches  that  received 
them,  and  copies  would  be  made  for  other 
churches;   or,  if  the  original  autograph  was  sent 

*  On  the  facilities  in  the  Roman  empire  for  the  circulation  of 
letters  see  Ramsay,  "  Letters  to  the  Seven  Churches,"  pp.  23-34. 
To  show  how  churches  passed  letters  about  in  the  early  centuries, 
see  Eusebius,  H.  E.,  v,  25.  And  compare  Gregory  on  the  Canon, 
p.  159. 


i^io^jc 


64  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

X""  to  another  church  as  a  loan,  a  copy  would  be 
made  before  its  return.  In  this  way  churches 
would  come,  in  no  long  time,  to  possess  collections 
of  Paul's  letters.  The  desire  to  make  these  col- 
lections complete  would  soon  follow,  and  would 
lead  to  search  for  additional  copies,  until  each 
important  church  would  have  what  it  considered 
a  complete  collection.  By  the  end  of  the  first 
century  we  may  fairly  suppose  this  process  to  be 
nearly  or  quite  completed,  and  the  churches  must 
by  that  time  have  been  virtually  agreed  as  to  what 
constituted  a  complete  collection  of  the  Pauline 
letters. 

This  account  of  the  process  is  hypothetical, 
but  the  result  is  not  hypothesis;  it  is  fact.  And 
the  hypothesis  concerning  the  process  is  con- 
firmed at  several  points  by  evidence.  Polycarp's 
letter  to  the  Philippians  shows  that  the  Asiatic 
churches  of  his  day  eagerly  sought  letters  of  other 
distinguished  men  than  apostles.  He  sends  with 
his  letter  those  of  Ignatius,  "  as  many  as  we  had 
by  us."  ^  The  making  of  collections  by  the 
churches  is  a  custom  already  well  established  by 
150,  and  of  course  must  have  begun  much  earlier. 

*  Polycarp  to  the  Philippians,  ch.  xiii.  i.  2,  Eusebius  has  several 
references  to  this  custom  as  being  continued  in  later  times,  H.  E., 
iv.  23;    V.  25. 


THE   BEGINNINGS    OF   A    COLLECTION  65 

When  Clement  wrote  to  the  Corinthians  (97), 
and  Ignatius  to  the  Phihppians  (117),  both  made 
reference  to  the  possession  by  these  churches  of 
Paul's  letters  to  them,  and  alluded  to  the  custom 
of  publicly  reading  the  letters. 

Nor  should  we  look  on  this  collecting  of  letters 
by  the  churches  as  something  exceptional  or  ab- 
normal, peculiar  to  the   Christian  communities. 
The  very  reverse  was  the  case.     It  was  not  un- 
common for  collections  of  letters  to  be  made,  as 
we  learn  from  classical  literature.     Soon  after 
the  death  of  Aristotle,  2>22  b.  c,  a  collection  of 
letters   purporting   to   be   his   was   published   in 
Athens.      It  turned   out  to  be   a   rather  clever 
forgery,  but  there  would  have  been  no  such  at- 
tempt at  fabrication  had  there  not  been  even  then 
an  established  custom  of  collecting  and  preserving 
the  letters  of  distinguished  men.     The  letters  of 
Cicero,    familiar    to    every    schoolboy    (as    Ma- 
caulay  delighted   to   say),   are   another   case   in 
point.     Paul's  letters  were  especially  worthy  of 
collection  and  preservation  by  the  early  Christian 
communities,  apart  from  any  question  of  inspi- 
ration.     They    were    genuine    letters,    personal 
communications  to  particular  churches,  the  un- 
studied outpourings  of  the  apostle's  heart,  but 


66  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

they  contained  discussions  of  the  fundamental 
principles  of  Christianity  and  practical  directions 
about  the  Christian  life,  that  were  of  universal 
appHcation  and  would  be  valuable  information 
and  counsel  for  all  churches,  as  well  as  for  those 
directly  addressed. 

Not  only  is  our  conjectural  history  of  the  first 
collections  of  apostolic  writings  confirmed  by  the 
few  patristic  statements  recoverable,  but  the  fa- 
miliarity with  these  writings  shown  by  the  earliest 
Fathers,  as  set  forth  in  the  preceding  chapter, 
points  to  the  same  conclusions.  For  a  time  the 
collections  of  the  churches  would  be  practically 
the  only  collections — there  could  be  few  complete 
private  copies,  perhaps  none — and  the  fact  that 
the  earliest  Fathers  show  such  intimate  ac- 
quaintance with  the  ideas  and  phraseology  of  the 
apostles,  even  when  they  do  not  formally  quote, 
warrants  the  conclusion  that  they  gained  this 
knowledge  largely,  if  not  wholly,  through  hear- 
ing the  apostolic  writings  publicly  read.  Ignatius 
and  Polycarp,  not  to  say  Clement,  must  either 
have  owned  or  have  heard  often  read,  a  practi- 
cally complete  collection  of  the  Pauline  Epistles, 
so  intimate  is  the  knowledge  shown  by  them  of 
nearly  all  the  letters.    The  East,  therefore,  seems 


THE    BEGINNINGS   OF   A    COLLECTION  67 

to  have  taken  the  lead  in  this  making  of  collec- 
tions, as  we  might  perhaps  have  expected;  and 
the  first  traces  of  such  collections  are  found  in 
Asia  Minor  and  Egypt/ 

Of  course,  this_p.ublic  reading  of  the  Pauline 
Epistles  would  at  first  be  occasional  and  sponta- 
neous, not  a  matter  of  rule,  but  such  reading  would 
tend  to  pass  into  a  regular,  liturgical  use.  Such 
was  the  process  t)y  which  all  the  liturgy  of  the 
church  developed.  There  is  a  very  suggestive 
passage  in  a  letter  of  Dionysius  of  Corinth, 
quoted  by  Eusebius.^  Writing  to  the  Roman 
Church,  he  says,  "  To-day  we  have  passed  the 
Lord's  holy  day,  in  which  we  have  read  your 
epistle.  From  it,  whenever  we  «,  ^  -^^ 
read  it,  we  shall  always  be  able  to 
draw  advice,  as  also  from  the  former  epistle, 
which  was  written  to  us  through  Clement."  ^ 
Now  if  a  letter  of  Clement's  would  be  thus  pre- 
served by  the  Corinthian  church,  and  was  fre- 
quently read  at  its  services  on  the  Lord's  Day, 
much  more  may  we  conclude  that  a  letter  of  Paul's 
would  be  prized   and   read.     Another  sentence 

^  Harnack,  "  Dogma,"  Vol.  II.,  p.  42,  note,  recognizes  this. 
2H.  E.,  iv.  23.  II. 

3  Compare  a   similar   testimony  to   Hegesippus   to   the   preservation 
at  Corinth  of  Clement's  letter,  also  preserved  by  Eusebius   (iii.   16). 


68  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

quoted  by  Eusebius  from  the  same  Dionysius  is 
quite  as  significant.  Complaining  that  some  of 
his  own  letters  have  been  garbled  by  false 
teachers,  he  adds :  "  It  is  not  wonderful  then  that 
some  have  attempted  to  adulterate  the  Lord's 
Scriptures  also  (t(oi^  xopcaxcov  ypaipwv) ,  since  they 
have  formed  designs  against  writings  that  are 
of  less  account."  From  which  we  are  fairly 
entitled  to  infer  that  "  the  Lord's  Scriptures  " 
were  honored  above  all  others  and  existed  in 
collections  that  were  jealously  guarded,  in  spite  of 
which  they  had  been  corrupted  by  heretics,  i.  e., 
their  text  had  been  mutilated  or  perverted.  The 
allusion  is  probably  to  the  heresy  of  Marcion, 
whose  relation  to  the  Canon  will  be  discussed  in  a 
later  chapter.  A  little  later  than  Dionysius,  Ter- 
tullian  ^  distinctly  implies  that  this  custom  had 
been  continuous  to  his  day :  "  Run  over  the 
apostolic  churches,  in  which  the  very  thrones  of 
the  apostles  are  still  preeminent  in 
their  places,  in  which  their  authen- 
tic writings  are  read,  uttering  the  voice  and  repre- 
senting the  face  of  each  of  them  severally." 

But  if  the  collection  of  Epistles  began  first,  col- 
lections of  the  Gospels  must  have  been  begun  soon 

^  De  Praescr.  Haer.,  36. 


THE    BEGINNINGS    OF    A    COLLECTION  69 

after  they  were  written.  We  have  this  soHd,  un- 
questionable fact  to  begin  with,  that  Tatian  wrote 
his  Diatessaron  not  long  after  the  middle  of  the 
second  century.  He  had  before  him,  and  used 
in  his  work,  our  four  canonical  Gospels,  and  this 
presupposes  the  recognition  of  these  Gospels  as  a 
collection  from  about  125.  Not  less  than  a  gen- 
eration can  be  allowed  for  such  a  collection  to 
acquire  a  currency  and  an  esteem  that  would  in- 
spire Tatian  with  the  wish  and  purpose  to  har- 
monize them  into  a  single  continuous  narrative. 

We  probably  cannot  push  the  date  further  back 
than  this — indeed,  the  gathering  of  the  Gospels 
into  a  collection  could  hardly  be  supposed,  with 
good  reason,  to  have  occurred  much  earlier  than 
that.  Of  course,  the  existence  of  the  Gospels 
separately  at  an  earlier  date  is  another  question, 
though  even  of  that  direct  external  testimony, 
apart  from  the  quotations  we  have  already  ex- 
amined, is  not  very  satisfactory.  Some  of  the 
citations  from  the  earlier  Fathers  will  not  bear 
the  interpretations  that  have  been  offered,  or 
warrant  the  inferences  that  have  been  drawn. 
Ignatius,*  for  example,  says:  "I  stand  by  the 
gospel  as  by  the  flesh  of  Christ,  and  by  the  apos- 

1  Ad  Phil.,  5. 


yO  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

ties  as  by  the  college  of  the  presbyters  of  the 
churches.  I  love  the  prophets  also,  because  they 
hope  in  Christ,  and  they  too  have  themselves 
proclaimed  the  gospel."  The  latter  clause  shows 
clearly  in  what  sense  "  gospel  "  is  to  be  under- 
stood in  the  former — it  is  the  oral  gospel  rather 
than  the  written,  or  the  content  rather  than  the 
form.  In  no  event  can  it  be  admitted  to  prove 
the  existence  in  the  time  of  Ignatius  of  written 
Gospels,  still  less  of  a  collection. 

In  the  Epistle  to  Diognetus,  the  reference  to 
a  written  record  seems  a  little  clearer,   almost 

_   _  certain  in  fact :  ^  *'  Thenceforth  the 

2l»  5)»  130 

fear  of  the  law  is  sung,  the  grace  of 

the  prophets  is  recognized,  the  faith  of  the  Gos- 
pels is  established,  the  tradition  of  the  apostles 
is  guarded,  and  the  grace  of  the  church  leaps  for 
joy."  This  may  be  taken,  with  slight  hesitation, 
as  the  first  unmistakable  mention  of  the  Gospels 
as  books,  distinct  from  the  gospel  as  a  message. 
Even  when  Justin,^  who  writes  several  decades 
later,  uses  such  phrases  as,  "as  it  is  written  in 
the  gospel,"  and  "  which  are  called  the  gospel," 
it  is  far  from  certain  that  he  means  any  definite 
book.     He  speaks  elsewhere  of  several   "  Me- 

*C.  II.  *Dia\.  c.  Try.  loo;  Apol.  i  :  66. 


THE    BEGINNINGS    OF   A    COLLECTION  7I 

of  the  apostles,  and  he  evidently  chooses 
this  word  in  writing  to  a  heathen  emperor  as 
less  technical  and  more  certain  to  be  understood 
than  the  Christian  term  *'  Gospel  " ;  but  in  such 
passages  as  those  cited  above,  he  probably  means 
the  content  of  those  "  Memoirs  " — the  gospel 
truth,  their  total  teaching — and  not  the  books 
themselves,  or  any  of  their  number. 

Few  matters  pertaining  to  patristic  literature 
have  been  more  hotly  debated,  and  few  are  still 
in  greater  uncertainty,  than  the  question.  What 
and  how  many  of  our  present  Gospels  did  Justin 
have  and  use?  Our  only  grounds  for  deciding 
the  question  are  the  quotations  in  his  writings, 
and  these  we  shall  now  briefly  examine.  The  un- 
certainty that  still  obtains  regarding  this  ques- 
tion would  have  been  much  less,  were  not  so  many 
critics  prone  to  make  daring  hypothesis  take  the 
place  of  painstaking  investigation.  It  throws 
great  light  on  the  problem  to  know  accurately 
what  was  Justin's  habit  of  mind  with  regard  to 
quotation,  and  we  fortunately  have  an  exact  test 
of  his  literary  conscience  in  his  profuse  quota- 
tions   from   the    Septuagint.      These    sometimes 

*  anonvrifjiovevfiaTa^  a  word  familiar  to  every  student  of  the  classics, 
as  the  name  that  Xenophon  chose  for  his  recollections  of  his  master, 
Socrates. 


72  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

exactly  agree  with  the  Septuagint  text  that  has 
come  down  to  us,  but  in  more  cases  they  surpris- 
ingly differ  from  that  text. 

A  critical  analysis  of  these  differences  shows 
that  of  eighty-nine  such  citations,  twenty-three 
(about  twenty-five  per  cent.)  are  substantially 
accurate,  the  differences  being  only  such  as  varia- 
tion of  text  would  satisfactorily  explain.  Thirty- 
three  give  the  substance  of  the  passage  quoted, 
with  material  variations  in  the  form;  eight  are 
adaptations,  and  eight  are  combinations  of  two 
or  more  separate  passages  into  one.  Seventeen 
passages  are  quoted  more  than  once  (nearly 
twenty  per  cent,  of  the  whole),  some  as  many  as 
three  times,  and  almost  never  twice  exactly  alike. 
We  find  also  that  Justin  quotes  as  from  Isaiah  a 
passage  found  in  Jeremiah,  and  vice  versa;  he 
says  Jeremiah  in  one  case  where  he  should  say 
Daniel;    and  Zephaniah  for  Zechariah. 

These  facts  may  be  taken  to  prove  to  a  demon- 
stration that  Justin  habitually  quoted  from 
memory — a  memory  unusually  full-stored  and  re- 
tentive, and  as  verbally  accurate  as  we  have  a 
right  to  expect,  since  he  nearly  always  gives  the 
sense  of  a  passage,  though  seldom  its  precise 
verbal  form,  but  a  memory  that  at  times  plays 


THE    BEGINNINGS   OF   A    COLLECTION  73 

him  strange  tricks.  Gregory  very  pointedly  and 
judiciously  says  of  Justin,  "  He  quotes  the  Greek 
Old  Testament  in  such  a  way  that  if  it  were  the 
text  of  the  Gospels  many  an  investigator  would 
be  inclined  to  call  it  a  quotation  from  an  unknown 
Gospel."  ^  Evidently  then,  we  are  not  to  expect 
from  this  Father  exact  quotations,  such  as  can  be 
secured  only  by  careful  reference  to  a  manuscript, 
even  if  one  were  available  to  him  when  he  wrote. 
Turning  now  to  Justin's  citations  from  the 
Gospels,  we  find  precisely  the  same  phenomena. 
He  does  not  duplicate  New  Testament  passages 
as  freely  as  Old,  but  in  at  least  one  case  he  quotes 
a  verse  twice  with  material  verbal  differences, 
though  with  no  alteration  of  the  sense.  His  va- 
riations from  the  text  of  our  Gospels  are  of  the 
same  nature  as  those  already  found  in  citations 
from  the  Septuagint,  showing  the  persistence  of 
his  mental  habits  and  their  uniform  working. 
The  nature  of  these  variations  will  be  made 
clearer  by  a  careful  comparison  of  a  few  char- 
acteristic cases : 


Justin 
I    came   not    to    call    the 
righteous,  but  sinners  to  re- 
pentance. 

^  Canon,  p.  89. 


New  Testament 
I    came    not    to    call    the 
righteous,    but    sinners    to 
repentance   (Matt.  9  :  13). 


74 


OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 


Justin 
If  ye  love  them  that  love 
you,  what  new  thing  do  yc? 
for  even  fornicators^  do 
this.  But  I  say  unto  you, 
Pray  for  your  enemies,  and 
love  them  that  hate  you, 
and  bless  them  that  curse 
you,  and  pray  for  them  that 
despitefully   use  you. 

To  him  that  smiteth  thee 
on  the  one  cheek,  offer  also 
the  other;  and  him  that 
taketh  away  thy  coat  or 
cloak  forbid  not.  And 
whosoever  shall  be  angry  is 
in  danger  of  the  fire.  And 
everyone  that  compelleth 
thee  to  go  with  him  a  mile, 
follow  him  two.  And  let 
your  good  works  shine  be- 
fore men,  that  they,  seeing 
them,  may  glorify  your 
Father  who  is  in  heaven. 


New  Testament 
For  if  ye  love  them  that 
love  you,  what  reward  have 
ye?  Do  not  even  the  publi- 
cans the  same  ?  (Matt.  5  :  46) . 
Love  your  enemies,  do 
good  to  them  that  hate  you, 
bless  them  that  curse  you, 
pray  for  them  that  despite- 
fully use  you  (Luke 6:  27,28). 

To  him  that  smiteth  thee 
on  one  cheek  offer  also  the 
other ;  and  from  him  that 
taketh  away  thy  cloak  with- 
hold not  thy  coat  also 
(Luke  6  :  29). 

Every  one  that  is  angry 
with  his  brother  .  .  .  shall 
be  in  danger  of  the  hell  of 
fire  (Matt.  5  :  22,  23). 

And  whosoever  shall  com- 
pel thee  to  go  one  mile,  go 
with  him  twain  (Matt.  5  :  41 ) . 

Even  so  let  your  light 
shine  before  men,  that  they 
may  see  your  good  works, 
and  glorify  your  Father  who 
is  in  heaven   (Matt.  5:16). 


*  This  curious  variation  suggests  that  Justin  may  have  had  a  dif- 
ferent reading  in  his  text  from  any  now  known.  The  textus  receptus 
has  here  reAwvat,  while  Westcott  and  Hort  and  most  other  critics 
read  iOviKoi,  It  is  at  least  possible  that  Justin's  reading,  iropvoi, 
is  not  a  mere  slip  of  memory,  but  has  behind  it  contemporary  MS 
authority.  He  does  not  often  use  words  utterly  different  from  our 
present  Greek  text,  but  often  substitutes  synonyms  and  different  con- 
structions. 


THE   BEGINNINGS   OF   A   COLLECTION 


75 


Justin 
Fear  not  them  that  kill 
you,  and  after  that  can  do 
no  more;  but  fear  him  who 
is  able  after  death  to  cast 
both  soul  and  body  into 
hell. 


Render  therefore  unto 
Caesar  the  things  that  are 
Caesar's,  and  to  God  the 
things  that  are  God's. 

Not  every  one  that  saith 
unto  me,  Lord,  Lord,  shall 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  but  he  that  doeth 
the  will  of  my  Father,  who 
is  in  heaven.  For  whoso- 
ever heareth  me,  and  doeth 
my  sayings,  heareth  him 
that  sent  me.  And  many 
will  say  unto  me.  Lord, 
Lord,  have  we  not  eaten 
and  drunk  in  thy  name  and 
done  wonders?     And   then 


New  Testament 
And  be  not  afraid  of 
them  that  kill  the  body,  but 
are  not  able  to  kill  the 
soul;  but  rather  fear  him 
who  is  able  to  destroy  both 
soul  and  body  in  hell 
(Matt  10  :  28.) 

Be  not  afraid  of  them 
who  kill  the  body,  and  after 
that  have  no  more  that  they 
can  do.  But  I  will  warn  ye 
whom  ye  shall  fear:  Fear 
him  who  after  he  hath 
killed  hath  authority  to 
cast  into  hell  (Luke  12  :  4, 
5). 

Render  therefore  unto 
Caesar  the  things  that  are 
Caesar's,  and  to  God  the 
things  that  are  God's 
(Matt.  22  :  21). 

Not  every  one  that  saith 
unto  me  Lord,  Lord,  shall 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  but  he  that  doeth 
the  will  of  my  Father  who 
is  in  heaven  (Matt.  7  :  21). 

He  that  heareth  you 
heareth  me  .  .  .  and  he 
that  rejecteth  me  rejecteth 
him  that  sent  me  (Luke 
10  :  16). 

Then  shall  ye  begin  to 
say.  We  did  eat  and  drink 


76 


OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 


Justin 
will  I  say  unto  them,  De- 
part from  me,  ye  workers 
of  iniquity.  Then  shall 
there  be  wailing  and  gnash- 
ing of  teeth  when  the  right- 
eous shall  shine  as  the  sun, 
and  the  wicked  are  sent  into 
everlasting  fire.  For  many 
shall  come  in  my  name, 
clothed  outwardly  in  sheep's 
clothing,  but  inwardly  being 
ravening  wolves.  By  their 
works  ye  shall  know  them. 
And  every  tree  that  bring- 
eth  not  forth  good  fruit  is 
hewn  down  and  cast  into 
the  fire. 


New  Testament 
in   thy   presence,    and    thou 
didst   teach    in   our   streets 
(Luke  13  ;  26). 

Many  will  say  to  me  in 
that  day,  Lord,  Lord,  did 
we  not  ...  by  thy  name 
do  many  mighty  works? 
And  then  will  I  profess 
unto  them,  I  never  knew 
you,  depart  from  me,  ye 
workers  of  iniquity  (Matt. 
7  :  22,  2Z). 

There  shall  be  weeping 
and  gnashing  of  teeth. 
Then  shall  the  righteous 
shine  forth  as  the  sun  in 
the  kingdom  of  their  father 
(Matt.  13  :  42,  43). 

Beware  of  false  prophets, 
who  come  to  you  in  sheep's 
clothing,  but  inwardly  are 
ravening  wolves    (Matt  7  : 

15). 

Every  tree  that  bringeth 
not  forth  good  fruit  is  hewn 
down  and  cast  into  the  fire. 
Therefore  by  their  fruits 
ye  shall  know  them  (Matt. 
7  :  19,  20). 


A  careful  comparison  of  these  and  similar  texts 
warrants  two  conclusions.  The  first  is,  that 
Justin  was  certainly  familiar  with  our  canonical 
Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke,  and  had  a  text 


THE    BEGINNINGS    OF    A    COLLECTION  "Jj 

substantially  identical  with  that  of  the  Vatican 
MS.    The  theory  is  not  tenable  that  he  possessed 
and  quoted  from  some  collection  of  our  Lord's 
sayings    differing    from    the    canonical    Gospels. 
There  cannot  have  been,  in  his  day,  Gospels  ac- 
cepted as  authoritative,  and  having  so  nearly  the 
same  contents,  other  than  Matthew  and  Luke. 
Such  writings  could  not  have  existed  and  perished 
without  leaving  some  trace.     The  second  conclu- 
sion is,  that  he  did  not  have  any  text  of  the  Gos- 
pels before  him  as  he  wrote,  but  quoted  from  a 
well-stored  memory.     By  this  method  he  often 
combined  parallel  or  similar  passages  from  the 
two  Gospels,  and  generally  gave  rather  the  sense 
of  a  passage  than  its  exact  form.     On  the  other 
hand,  brief  and  pregnant  sayings  have  fastened 
themselves  in  his  memory,  and  he  cites  them  with 
exact  verbal  accuracy.    Both  the  agreements  and 
the  disagreements  between  his  citations  and  the 
original  text,  are  better  explained  on  this  hypoth- 
esis than  on  any  other. 

That  Justin  was  acquainted  with  our  synoptic 
Gospels  is  now  very  generally  admitted,  and  this 
of  course  implies  that  at  least  a  collection  of  those 
Gospels  was  now  commonly  received  and  publicly 
read  in  the  churches.     The  questions  still  under 


78  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

dispute  are,  Did  he  use  Gospels  other  than  the  first 
three  of  our  Canon?  and,  Did  he  know  and  use 
the  fourth  Gospel?  The  first  of  these  questions 
is  too  technical,  and  of  too  little  importance  for 
our  inquiry,  to  be  here  discussed.  The  relations 
of  the  non-canonical  Gospels  to  the  Canon  are 
examined  in  a  general  way  in  another  part  of  the 
investigation.  The  second  question,  however, 
is  of  great  importance  and  is  capable  of  discussion 
adequate  for  our  purpose  without  technicalities. 

The  evidence  in  favor  of  the  conclusion  that 
Justin  knew  and  used  the  Gospel  of  John  is  both 
general  and  specific.  General  evidence  is  his  ac- 
quaintance with  ideas  that  can  be  reasonably  sup- 
posed to  have  been  derived  from  no  other  source. 
Throughout  his  writings  he  makes  prominent  the 
doctrine  of  the  Logos,  which  he  must  have  re- 
ceived either  from  John  or  from  Philo.  But  there 
is  a  notable  difference  between  these  two  forms 
of  the  Logos  doctrine,  the  differentiating  feature 
being  the  incarnation,  which  is  fundamental  in 
John's  theology,  but  utterly  foreign  to  Philo's 
philosophy.  Now  this  is  the  very  thing  on  which 
Justin  seizes  and  exploits  to  the  utmost.  He 
could  have  derived  this  from  no  other  source  than 
the  fourth  Gospel — at  least,  no  other  source  has 


THE    BEGINNINGS   OF   A    COLLECTION  79 

been  even  plausibly  conjectured.  The  preexist- 
ence  of  Christ  is  not  taught  anywhere  in  the  syn- 
optists,  and  nowhere  but  from  the  Gospel  of 
John  could  Justin  have  obtained  such  an  idea  as 
this,  "  That  Christ  is  the  firstborn  of  God,  being 
the  Logos  of  which  every  race  of  men  have  been 
partakers,  we  have  been  taught  and  have  declared 
before."  ^  And  since  Justin  distinctly  sets  this 
forth  as  an  idea  that  he  has  been  taught,  the  hy- 
pothesis that  he  independently  originated  it —  im- 
probable in  the  extreme  per  se — is  excluded. 

Other  ideas  that  are  distinctly  Johannine  are 
found  in  Justin.  It  will  be  sufficient  to  mention 
one  more :  ^  "  For  that  he  was  the  only  begotten 
of  the  Father  of  the  universe,  having  been  be- 
gotten by  him  in  a  peculiar  manner  as  his  Logos 
and  Power,  and  having  afterward  become  a  man 
through  the  Virgin,  as  we  have  learned  from  the 
'  Memoirs,'  I  showed  before."  The  virgin  birth 
can  only  be  learned  from  the  "  Memoirs  "  of  Mat- 
thew and  Luke,  but  the  idea  that  Christ  was  the 
only-begotten  Son  could  be  derived  from  no 
other  source  than  the  fourth  Gospel.  That  Jus- 
tin was  well  acquainted  with  that  book  must  be 
said  to  be  rendered  extremely  probable  by  his 

^  Apol.   I  :  46.  ^Dial.   105. 


8o  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

knowledge  of  these  peculiarly  Johannine  ideas 
and  phrases. 

That  probability  becomes  moral  certainty  when 
v/e  look  at  the  specific  evidence.  As  Mercutio 
said  of  his  wound,  "  'T  is  not  so  deep  as  a  well  nor 
so  wide  as  a  church  door ;  but  't  is  enough,  't  will 
serve."  It  is  the  best-known  passage  in  Justin's 
"  Apology,"  his  description  of  Christian  baptism: 

I  will  also  relate  the  manner  in  which  we  dedicated 
ourselves  to  God  when  we  had  been  made  new  through 
Christ;  lest,  if  we  omit  this,  we  seem  to  be  unfair  in  the 
explanation  we  are  making.  As  many  as  are  persuaded 
and  believe  that  what  we  teach  and  say  is  true,  and 
undertake  to  be  able  to  live  accordingly,  are  instructed 
to  pray  and  to  entreat  God  with  fasting,  for  the  remis- 
sion of  their  sins  that  are  past,  we  praying  and  fasting 
with  them.  Then  they  are  brought  by  us  where  there 
is  water,  and  are  regenerated  in  the  same  manner  in 
which  we  ourselves  were  regenerated.  For,  in  the  name 
of  the  Father  and  Lord  of  the  universe,  and  of  our 
Saviour,  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  they  then 
receive  the  washing  with  water.  For  Christ  also  said, 
"  Except  ye  be  born  again,  ye  shall  not  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  heaven."  Now,  that  it  is  impossible  for 
those  who  have  once  been  born  to  enter  into  their 
mothers*  wombs,  is  manifest  to  all.  .  .  And  this  wash- 
ing is  called  illumination,  because  they  who  learn  these 
things  are  illuminated  in  their  understandings  (ApoL 
I  :  60). 

How  can  any  candid  reader  of  this  passage 
doubt  that  here  we  have  a  citation  by  Justin  of 


THE    BEGINNINGS    OF    A    COLLECTION  8l 

John  3  :  3-5  ?  Yet  it  has  been  obstinately  dis- 
puted that  this  is  such  a  citation,  on  the  sole 
ground  that  the  quotation  is  not  verbally  accu- 
rate. Not  one  reader  in  ten  of  this  page,  one 
ventures  to  assert,  can  tell  exactly  in  what  the 
inaccuracy  consists,  without  consulting  his  New 
Testament,  so  fairly  is  the  meaning  of  Christ's 
words  given.  To  insist  on  precise  verbal  ac- 
curacy in  this  case,  in  view  of  what  we  have 
discovered  about  Justin's  habits  in  the  matter  of 
quotation,  is  inadmissible.  And  it  should  per- 
haps be  added  that  this  decision  is  greatly 
strengthened  when  we  study  the  habits  of  the 
Fathers  generally  in  regard  to  quotations  from 
the  New  Testament,  and  even  their  citations  of 
this  particular  passage.  Dr.  Ezra  Abbot  made  a 
special  examination  of  patristic  literature  to 
determine  this  very  point,  and  shows  conclusively 
that  Hippolytus,  Origen,  Eusebius,  Athanasius, 
Basil,  Chrysostom,  and  Gregory  of  Nyssa  do  not 
quote  this  passage  with  any  more  verbal  accu- 
racy than  Justin.^  Is  it  not  absurd  to  apply  to 
a  Father  of  the  second  century  a  standard  of  per- 
fect accuracy  which  is  not  acknowledged  or  ob- 

iThe   Fourth    Gospel.      Essays   by   Ezra   Abbot,    Andrew    P.    Pea- 
body,  and  Bishop  Lightfoot.     New  York,  1891.     See  esp.  pp.  26-37. 


82  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

served  down  to  the  fifth,  if  even  then?  And  if 
free  citation  of  this  same  text  is  no  evidence  that 
the  later  Fathers  were  ignorant  of  the  fourth 
Gospel,  how  can  the  same  citation  prove  that 
Justin  did  not  know  it?  And  most  incredible  of 
all,  how  can  we  suppose  that  the  most  striking 
saying  in  the  fourth  Gospel  should  have  been 
hit  upon  independently  by  any  other  writer,  or 
could  be  quoted  by  Justin  from  any  other  source  ? 
Not  to  mention  that  no  plausible  suggestion  of 
another  source  has  ever  been  made. 

Harnack  will  not  be  suspected  of  any  over 
haste  to  construe  evidence  in  favor  of  the  fourth 
Gospel,  and  this  is  his  latest  deliverance  on  this 
subject :  "  One  must  leave  open  the  possibility, 
yes,  a  certain  probability,  that  the  designation 
of  the  fourth  Gospel  as  the  work  of  the  apostle 
was  to  be  found  already,  in  a.  d.  155-160,  namely, 
on  the  part  of  Justin."  ^  In  such  a  case,  where 
Harnack  says  "  probable  "  we  may  say  "  certain." 

The  most  interesting  thing,  however,  that  we 
learn  from  Justin  is  the  order  of  Christian  wor- 
ship that  obtained  in  his  day.  To  convince  the 
emperor  that  the  Christian  assemblies  were  harm- 
less he  describes  them  in  detail : 

*  Chronologic,  i  :  673. 


THE   BEGINNINGS   OF   A    COLLECTION  83 

And  on  the  day  called  Sunday,  all  who  live  in  cities 
or  in  the  country  gather  together  to  one  place,  and  the 
memoirs  ^  of  the  apostles  or  the  writings  of  the  prophets 
are  read,  as  long  as  time  permits;  then,  when  the 
reader  has  ceased,  the  president  verbally  instructs,  and 
exhorts  to  the  imitation  of  these  good  things.  Then 
we  all  rise  together  and  pray  and,  as  we  before  said, 
when  our  prayer  is  ended,  bread  and  wine  and  water 
are  brought,  and  the  president  in  like  manner  offers 
prayers  and  thanksgivings,  according  to  his  ability,  and 
the  people  assent,  saying  Amen;  and  there  is  a  dis- 
tribution to  each,  and  a  participation  of  that  over  which 
thanks  have  been  given,  and  to  those  who  are  absent 
a  portion  is  sent  by  the  deacons.  And  they  who  are 
well  to  do,  and  willing,  give  what  each  thinks  fit;  and 
what  is  collected  is  deposited  with  the  president,  who 
succors  the  orphans  and  widows,  and  those  who,  through 
sickness  or  any  other  cause,  are  in  want,  and  those  who 
are  in  bonds,  and  the  strangers  sojourning  among  us, 
and  in  a  word  takes  care  of  all  who  are  in  need.  But 
Sunday  is  the  day  on  which  we  all  hold  our  common 
assembly,  because  it  is  the  first  day  on  which  God, 
having  wrought  a  change  in  the  darkness  and  matter, 
made  the  world;  and  Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour  on  the 
same  day  rose  from  the  dead  (i.  67). 

Apart  from  the  general  interest  that  attaches  to 
this,  the  earHest  account  but  one  ^  of  a  Christian 

iJn  the  preceding  chapter  Justin  says:  "For  the  apostles,  in  the 
Memoirs  composed  by  them,  which  are  called  Gospels,  have  de- 
livered unto  us,"  etc.  This  is  an  additional  reason  why  we  can- 
not  suppose  that  Justin  had  in  his  possession  Gospels  different  from 
those  that  we  now  have.  Already  certain  "  Memoirs  "  were  known 
as  "  Gospels "  in  a  technical  sense.  We  cannot  doubt  that  they 
were  the  four  now  possessed  by  us. 

2  An  earlier,  but  much  less  complete,  account  of  a  Christian  assem- 
bly is  given  in  Pliny's  well-known  letter  to  Trajan:    "...  They  met 


84  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

assembly  for  worship,  the  thing  that  immediately 
concerns  us  is  Justin's  statement  that  the  apostolic 
writings,  or  some  of  them,  were  by  his  time  so 
firmly  accepted  as  Scripture  as  to  be  regularly  read 
and  expounded  in  the  public  assemblies  of  Chris- 
tians, on  equal  terms  with  the  Old  Testament. 

We  may  note  in  passing  that  one  of  the  most 
cogent  reasons  for  regarding  the  Second  Epistle 
of  Peter  a  pseudonymous  second-century  compo- 
sition, and  not  the  work  of  the  apostle  whose 
name  it  bears,  is  the  reference  to  the  writings  of 
"our  beloved  brother  Paul,"  and  the  ranking  of 
them  with  "  the  other  Scriptures  "  (2  Peter  3  : 
16).  This  is  a  saying  that  one  can  hardly  re- 
gard as  possible  much  prior  to  a.  d.  150,  because 
the  idea  does  not  seem  to  have  taken  definite  form 
before  that  time.  If,  however.  Second  Peter  was 
composed  about  the  same  time  with  Justin's 
Apology,  its  language  exactly  coincides  with  what 

on  an  appointed  day  before  daylight,  and  sang  antiphonally  a  hymn 
to  Christ,  as  to  some  god,  binding  themselves  by  a  solemn  oath 
(Sacramento),  not  for  the  purpose  of  any  wicked  design,  but  never 
to  commit  any  fraud,  theft,  or  adultery;  never  to  falsify  their  word 
nor  deny  a  trust  when  they  should  be  called  to  deliver  it  up.  After 
which  it  was  their  custom  to  separate  and  then  to  reassemble,  to 
eat  in  common  a  harmless  meal."  We  have  here  no  mention  of  the 
reading  of  any  scriptures,  but  this  is  doubtless  due  rather  to  Pliny's 
defective  information  than  to  the  absence  of  this  feature  from 
Christian  worship,  even  in  the  year  115,  which  is  the  approximate 
date  of  this  letter. 


THE   BEGINNINGS   OF   A    COLLECTION  b$ 

we  know  to  have  been  the  growing  opinion  in  the 
church,  if,  indeed,  that  opinion  cannot  be  de- 
scribed as  by  that  time  universal. 

The  so-called  "catholic"  Epistles  are  so  evi- 
dently of  an  encyclical  nature,  either  by  express 
statement  or  by  character  of  contents,  that  the 
case  does  not  require  argument.  Their  tradi- 
tional name  indicates  an  early  perception  of  the 
fact.  As  none  of  them  is  addressed  to  any  defi- 
nite church,  and  some  of  them  are  not  addressed 
to  churches,  they  may  well  have  made  their  way 
into  general  acceptance  more  slowly  than  the 
Pauline  Epistles,  and  hence  the  early  making  of 
a  collection  of  them  in  a  separate  group  is  doubt- 
ful. Two  of  this  class  of  letters  won  their  way 
to  speedy  and  practically  undisputed  acceptance 
among  the  early  churches,  the  First  Epistle  of 
Peter  and  the  First  of  John.  Which  of  these 
had  the  precedence,  either  of  time  or  of  honor,  it 
is  difficult  to  say.  If  we  knew  how  widely  the  list 
of  the  Muratorian  Fragment  was  accepted — what 
is  covered  by  that  elastic  "  we  "— it  might  be 
possible  to  decide  that  John's  first  letter  was  more 
rapidly  and  widely  accepted  in  the  West  than 
Peter's.  The  story  of  the  catholic  Epistles,  as  a 
separate  collection,  belongs  to  a  later  chapter. 


86  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

The  way  in  which  these  collections  came  to 
be  made  and  preserved  by  the  churches  has  not 
been  recorded,  but  may  be  conjectured  with  a 
high  degree  of  probability.  Every  Jewish  syna- 
gogue had,  as  its  principal  features,  a  be  ma  or 
raised  platform  on  which  the  reader  of  the  Scrip- 
tures stood,  and  an  ark  or  chest,  in  which  the 
rolls  of  the  law  and  prophets  were  kept.  These 
rolls  were  wrapped  in  linen  cloths,  and  placed  in  a 
case.  Many  interpreters  suppose  that  the  (peXoprj^, 
of  which  the  apostle  speaks  in  2  Tim.  4  :  13,  was 
not  a  traveling  cloak,  as  our  version  has  it,  but 
a  case  for  the  "  books  "  and  "  parchments  "  of 
which  mention  immediately  follows,  and  so  is  it 
rendered  in  the  Syriac  version.  It  is  in  the 
highest  degree  probable — morally  certain,  indeed 
— that  the  Christian  assemblies  from  the  begin- 
ning adopted  a  similar  method  of  caring  for  their 
sacred  books ;  and  as  soon  as  they  began  to  have 
regular  places  of  meeting,  whether  in  private 
houses  or  elsewhere,  the  ark  and  its  collection  of 
rolls  would  be  the  most  prized  possession  of  a 
Christian  community. 

That  by  the  end  of  the  third  century  the  exist- 
ence of  these  collections  was  so  notorious  as  to 
be   known   even   to   the   heathen,    is   sufficiently 


THE    BEGINNINGS    OF    A    COLLECTION  87 

proved  by  the  events  of  the  last  great  persecution. 
In  his  edicts  issued  in  303  Diocletian  struck  three 
heavy  and  well-directed  blows  against  Chris- 
tianity :  the  bishops  were  to  be  put  to  death,  the 
churches  were  to  be  confiscated,  and  the  sacred 
books  were  to  be  delivered  to  the  authorities  and 
destroyed.  By  thus  depriving  the  Christians  at 
one  stroke  of  leaders,  places  of  worship,  and 
sacred  books,  the  emperor  believed  that  the  de- 
struction of  this  feared  and  hated  sect  would  be 
assured.  It  was  a  shrewd  plan,  and  not  the  least 
promising  feature  of  it  was  the  attempted  destruc- 
tion of  the  sacred  books.  But  this  was  found  the 
most  difficult  edict  of  the  three  to  enforce.  It 
was  comparatively  easy  for  the  authorities  to  lay 
hands  on  a  bishop;  even  if  he  tried  to  conceal 
himself  or  flee,  which  for  the  most  part  the 
bishops  declined  to  do,  he  could  be  searched  for 
and  found  with  little  difficulty.  But  the  books 
were  a  different  matter,  and  if  the  Christians  were 
determined  not  to  give  them  up,  they  could  be 
easily  concealed.  Not  a  few  Christians,  some  of 
them  bishops,  came  forward  and  surrendered  the 
sacred  books  in  their  charge,  some  saving  their 
lives  thereby,  only  to  find  themselves  thereafter 
execrated  as  traitors   (traditores)  by  the  whole 


88  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Christian     community.       Others     pretended     to 

comply,   and  gave  up  copies  of  books  Hke  the 

Shepherd  and  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,   which, 

though  formerly  esteemed  as  Scripture  by  some, 

were  by  that  time  coming  to  be  held  to  belong  in 

a  class  below  the  apostolic  writings.     Though 

many    copies    were     destroyed,     the     Christian 

churches  as  a  whole  seem  to  have  preserved  their 

cherished  Scriptures,  even  through  the  terrible 

persecution  of  Diocletian. 

There  is  one  other  book  that  must  have  been 

definitely  accepted  as  canonical  by  the  time  of 

«   -.  Justin,    and    that   is    the   Acts    of 

B,  S).  177 

the   Apostles.      The   evidence    for 

such  a  conclusion  is  partly  positive  and  partly 
negative.  We  have  some  definite  fact,  we  have 
more  probable  inference.  It  is  significant,  as 
negative  evidence,  that  this  is  a  book  about  which 
no  question  seems  ever  to  have  been  raised,  which 
could  not  have  been  the  case  if  there  had  been 
doubt  as  to  its  authenticity  or  authority.  Then  it 
was  so  obviously  a  continuation  of  the  third  Gos- 
pel, that  acceptance  of  the  Gospel  necessarily  car- 
ried with  it  the  Acts  also.  It  is  true  that  the  ear- 
liest direct  quotation  from  the  Acts  is  in  the  letter 
from  the  churches  of  Vienne  and  Lyons  regarding 


THE   BEGINNINGS   OF   A    COLLECTION  89 

the  great  persecution  in  those  cities,  preserved  in 
the  history  of  Eusebius/  Alluding  to  some  of 
their  own  martyrs,  the  letter  says,  ''  They  prayed 
for  those  who  ordered  their  torture,  as  did  Ste- 
phen, that  perfect  martyr,  '  Lord,  lay  not  this  sin 
to  their  charge'"  (Acts  7  :  60).  This  letter 
was  written  about  177;  and  little  later,  if  any, 
Irenseus,^  in  his  work  on  heresies,  quotes  or 
summarizes  whole  chapters  from  the  Acts. 

But  much  earlier  than  this — indeed,  from  the 
beginnings  of  Christian  literature — we  have  al- 
lusions to  the  book  and  echoes  of  its  language, 
such  as  to  convince  us  that  it  was  in  use.  Such 
are  the  following  phrases  in  Clement :  "  more 
willing  to  give  than  to  receive " ;  *'  being  es- 
pecially mindful  of  the  words  of  the  Lord  Jesus, 
which  he  spake  " ;  "a  man  after  mine  own  heart, 
David."  This  last  is  found  in  Acts  13  :  22, 
where  it  is  not  an  exact  quotation  from  the  Old 
Testament,  but  a  combination  of  i  Sam.  13  :  14 
and  Ps.  89  :  80.  So  unique  a  combination  could 
hardly  have  been  made  by  a  second  writer  through 
fnere  coincidence ;  it  must  be  a  quotation. 

Ignatius  in  his  letter  to  the  Smyrneans  writes, 
"  And  after  his  resurrection  he  did  eat  and  drink 

*H.  E.,  V.  2.  'iii.  14.  15- 


90  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

with  them,  as  being  possessed  of  flesh,  although 
spiritually  he  was  united  to  the  Father."  There 
are  but  two  written  sources  from  which  this 
knowledge  could  be  derived,  the  last  chapter  of 
John's  Gospel  and  Acts  lo  :  41.  The  latter  is 
the  more  probable  source.  Unwritten  tradition 
may,  in  any  case,  be  dismissed  as  too  improbable 
for  serious  consideration.  "  Every  one  shall  go 
to  his  own  place  "  is  a  yet  more  unmistakable 
echo  of  Acts  i  :  25. 

Polycarp's  epistle,  brief  as  it  is,  has  numerous 
suggestions  of  the  Acts :  "  If  we  suffer  because  of 
the  Name  ";  ''  May  he  give  you  part  and  lot  "; 
"  whom  God  raised  up,  having  loosed  the  pangs 
of  death  ";  ^'  which  is  coming  as  judge  of  quick 
and  dead."  This  last  phrase  caught  the  minds  of 
many  Fathers ;  we  find  it  in  Barnabas  and  Justin. 
"  He  that  made  heaven  and  earth  and  all  that  in 
them  is,"  is  also  echoed  by  a  number  of  Fathers, 
especially  in  the  Epistle  to  Diognetus.  Alto- 
gether the  evidence  is  quite  sufficient  to  convince 
that  this  book  must  have  belonged  to  the  church 
collections  from  an  early  date,  and  was  read  in 
the  churches  generally. 

The  specific  purpose  of  Justin  in  his  writings 
made  it  proper,  almost  necessary,  for  him  to  con- 


THE   BEGINNINGS   OF   A    COLLECTION  9 1 

fine  his  quotations  to  the  Gospels — the  teachings 
of  Jesus,  not  those  of  Paul,  were  most  likely  to 
convince  those  for  whom  he  wrote,  a  heathen 
emperor  and  Jews.  Any  argument  from  silence 
here  would  therefore  be  entirely  worthless,  nor  is 
it  necessary  to  quote  the  few  passages  in  which 
critics  think  they  see  evidence  that  Justin  was 
acquainted  with  the  Pauline  Epistles.  We  have 
already  seen  enough  evidence  from  other  sources 
to  convince  one  who  is  open  to  conviction  that 
these  were  generally  known  and  publicly  read, 
and  Justin  must  be  presumed  to  have  been  well 
acquainted  with  them,  though  he  does  not  use 
them. 

This,  then,  is  the  result  of  our  investigation 
thus  far :  About  the  middle  of  the  second  century 
our  four  Gospels  were  generally  accepted  and 
read  in  the  Christian  churches,  together  with  the 
Acts,  most  of  the  Pauline  Epistles,  and  in  all 
probability  also,  the  first  Epistle  of  Peter  and  the 
first  Epistle  of  John.  But  when  we  say  that  these 
churches  did  this  or  that  in  the  second  century, 
there  is  danger  that  some  will  understand  con- 
certed action.  Of  this  there  is  seldom  any  proof, 
and  it  is  highly  improbable  per  se.  The  churches 
instinctively  acted  on  common  principles,  and  thus 


92  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

without  concert  substantial  uniformity  was  at- 
tained. The  unfounded  assumption  of  concert 
undedies  much  German  writing,  not  only  on  the 
Canon,  but  on  all  early  church  history. 


IV 
THE  VOICE  OF  HERESY 


ly 

HERESY    began  even  during  the  apostolic 
age.    The  letters  of  Paul  contain  frequent 
references  to  false  teachers  and  false  doctrines, 
and  in  the  First  Epistle  of  John  there  are  allu- 
sions by  no  means  obscure  to  the  Docetic  heresy. 
With  the  progress  of  time  and  the  growth  of 
Christian  churches,  heresies  became  more  frequent 
and  won  large  numbers  of  adherents.     In  not  a  '  I'i^^^c,  J^§ 
few  cases  they  threatened  for  a  time  to  become  the   \ 
prevailing  belief  of  Christians,'  in  which  case  the    I 
heresy  would  have  become  orthodoxy.     Almost 
every  element  of  the  gospel,  nearly  every  teaching 
contained  in  the  apostolic  writings,  became  in  turn 
the  object  of  question  or  attack,  and  the  survival   ' 
of  any  part  of  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the 
saints  is  no  slight  proof  of  its  divine  origin  and 
inherent  truth.  •* — '' 

With   regard   to   the   apostolic   writings,   two 
policies  were  pursued  by  the  heretical  sects  and 

'  The  only  definition  of  orthodoxy  that  is  historically  verifiable  is 
this:  Orthodoxy  is  that  body  of  opinion  regarding  Christian  truth 
which  at  any  given  time  is  held  by  a  majority  of  the  church.  Truth 
is  not  decided  by  majorities;    orthodoxy  is. 

95^    ^ 


g6  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

their  leaders.  One  was  to  accept  their  authority 
and  endeavor  to  estabhsh  the  heretical  doctrine 
by  quotations  from  these  writings,  which  were 
often  subjected  to  a  forcible  exegesis.  The  other 
plan  was  to  reject  some  of  the  writings  and  so 
mutilate  others  as  to  make  them  confirm  the 
heresy.  The  Fathers  continually  charge  those 
whom  they  stigmatize  as  heretics  with  these  faults. 
They  sometimes  seem  to  make  their  charge  good, 
and  in  a  few  cases  there  can  be  little  doubt  that 
the  charges  are  well  founded.  In  this  matter  of 
quotations,  however,  we  must  bear  in  mind  that 
unfair  wresting  of  sentences  from  their  context 
is  always  possible,  and  that  in  controversy  scru- 
pulous care  is  necessary  if  one  would  be  just  to 
his  opponent.  It  does  not  prepossess  us  in  favor 
of  the  fairness  of  the  Fathers,  when  we  read  the 
bitter  and  intemperate  words  nearly  always 
written  of  a  heretic. 

As  an  instance  very  pertinent  to  our  inquiry,  we 
are  prepared  to  discount  much  of  what  Tertullian 
says,  when  we  find  him  beginning  his  important 
treatise  "  Against  Marcion  "  by  describing  Pon- 
tus  and  its  people  in  the  blackest  terms,  and  then 
adding :  "  Nothing  however  in  Pontus  is  so  bar- 
barous and  sad  as  the  fact  that  Marcion  was  born 


THE    VOICE    OF    HERESY  97 

there — fouler  than  any  Scythian,  more  roving 
than  the  wagon  hfe  of  the  Sarmatian,  more  in- 
human than  the  Massagete,  more  audacious  than 
an  Amazon,  darker  than  the  sky  [of  Pontus], 
colder  than  its  winter,  more  brittle  than  its  ice, 
more  deceitful  than  Ister,  more  craggy  than  the 
Caucasus.  .  .  What  Pontic  mouse  ever  had  such 
gnawing  powers  as  he  who  has  gnawed  the 
Gospels  to  pieces? ''  The  passage  omitted  is  too 
indecent,  as  well  as  too  abusive,  for  quotation. 
Let  us  be  grateful  that  controversial  manners 
have  somewhat  improved  since  the  second  cen- 
tury. What  orthodox  writer  to-day  would  use 
such  language  regarding  a  Briggs  or  a  Crapsey  ? 

Bearing  constantly  in  mind,  therefore,  that  we 
know  the  early  heretics  only  through  writers  who 
have  attempted  their  refutation  in  such  a  spirit 
as  Tertullian  discloses,  and  using  cautiously  the 
few  facts  that  we  are  able  to  glean  from  a  mass 
of  irrelevant  detail,  we^all  still  find  it  established 
beyond  reasonable  doubt  that  the  heretics  in  gen- 
eral did  not  differ  from  the  orthodox  in  the  sec- 
ond century  regarding  the  authenticity  of  the 
apostolic  writings.  Nor,  for  the  most  part,  does 
the  question  of  the  authority  of  the  writings  seem 
to  have  been  raised.    If  a  heretic  found  any  writ- 

G 


^p 


9--  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

jkJJ^        f  Jng"  too  Strongly  opposed  to  his  teaching  to  be 


,  reconciled  with  it,  the  simplest  expedient  was 
:  to  ignore  it,  and  commonly  this  was  the  course 
i  pursued.  In  the  quotations  given  by  the  Fathers 
j  from  the  earlier  heretical  writings — those  before 
150 — the  same  method  of  citing  seems  to  prevail 
that  we  have  found  in  the  orthodox  Fathers :  fre- 
quent allusions,  rather  than  exact  quotations,  and 
such  a  borrowing  of  words  and  phrases  as  indi- 
cates at  least  considerable  acquaintance  with  the 
apostolic  writings. 

Thus  Simon  Magus  shows  familiarity  with 
Matthew,  John,  and  First  Corinthians,  which  he 
cites  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  Old  Testament, 
precisely  as  Clement  or  Polycarp  might  do.  Cer- 
inthus,  one  of  the  earlier  Gnostics,  according 
to  tradition  personally  opposed  as  an  enemy  to 
the  truth  by  the  Apostle  John,  used  the  Gospel  of 
Matthew,  but  is  said  to  have  rejected  the  writings 
of  Paul  on  account  of  that  apostle's  opposition 
to  circumcision.  So  the  exposition  of  the  Ophite 
heresy,  and  others  closely  related  to  it,  as  given 
by  Epiphanius,  shows  that  the  heretics  were  in- 
timately acquainted  with  the  books  quoted  by 
the  Fathers,  and  relied  on  them  to  establish  their 
doctrines.     Clear  traces  are  found  in  the  frag- 


THE   VOICE    OF    HERESY  99 

ments  of  their  writings  of  Matthew,  Luke,  Johh, 
the  PauHne  Epistles,  Hebrews,  and  Revelation. 

Many  extracts  are  also  preserved  fromxBasi-.  UstJuUx^ 
lides  and  Valentinus,  which  show__that  they  at- '^^LM^^If 
tempted  to  sustain  their  teachings  by  quotations  \ 
from  the  apostolic   writings,   often   forcing  the 
exegesis,  it  is  true,  but  not  much  more  than  we 
find  the  orthodox  Fathers  doing.    Tertullian  tells 
us    that   Valentinus    used    "  a    complete    Instru- 
ment," by  which  he  apparently  means  the  entire 
New  Testament  as  then  received,  but  he  charges 
the  heretic  with  mutilating  the  text,  and  Irenaeus 
says  that  he  added  another  Gospel  to  the  canonical 
four.    How  much  foundation  there  was  for  these 
charges  we  lack  adequate  means  of  judging. 

It  is  worthy  of  note  also  that  with  Heracleon,  a 
follower  of  Valentinus,  originated  the  allegorical 
method  of  interpretation — which  presupposes  ac- 
ceptance of  the  authority  of  the  writings  inter- 
preted.^ For,  if  a  writing  lack  authority,  the 
simpler  way  is  to  reject  it  altogether.  If  its 
authority  be  admitted,  but  its  literal  meaning  is 
awkward  to  reconcile  with  one's  teaching,  the  al- 
legorical method  can  be  used  to  make  it  mean 

*  Fragments  of  Heracleon's  commentary  on  the  Fourth  Gospel  may 
be  found  in  the  Cambridge  "  Texts  and  Studies,"  Vol.  I.,  No.  4. 


100 


OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 


Jh 


<^' 


m 


whatever  one  likes.  The  Fathers  were  quick  to 
recognize  the  advantages  of  this  method,  and 
found  it  so  convenient  for  the  defense  of  heresy 
that  they  adopted  it  in  the  cause  of  orthodoxy. 

It  is  agreed  among  the  Fathers  that  the  first 
formal  attempt  at  a  canon — that  is  to  say,  a  defi- 
nite list  of  all  the  writings  to  be  accepted  as  Scrip- 
ture— was  made  by  Marcion,  one  of  the  most 
active  heretics  of  the  second  century.  That  he 
was  a  native  of  Pontus  is  all  that  we  learn  of  his 
origin  from  the  Fathers  nearest  to  him;  later 
writers  add  that  he  was  the  son  of  the  bishop  of 
Sinope.  He  seems  to  have  been  at  least  a  pres- 
byter, possibly  a  bishop,  before  leaving  the  East. 
He  came  to  Rome  somewhere  about  150,  and  is 
charged  with  attempting  to  gain  the  foremost 
place  there,  failing  which  he  became  a  heretic  and 
was  excommunicated.  The  facts  regarding  his 
life  are  obscure,  and  for  our  purpose  unimpor- 
tant ;  enough  that  he  is  known  or  believed  to  have 
traveled  widely,  establishing  churches  of  his  heret- 
ical order  in  many  parts  of  the  empire,  which 
became  formidable  rivals  of  the  Catholic  Church 
and  endured  to  the  time  of  Constantine,  or  later. 

Four  of  the  Fathers — Irenseus,  Tertullian,  Hip- 
polytus,  and  Epiphanius — have  given  us  informa- 


THE    VOICE    OF    HERESY  lOI 

tion  more  or  less  detailed  about  this  heresy.  In 
the  main  particulars  they  are  agreed,  and  Ter- 
tullian  especially  gives  us  enough  quotations  from 
Marcion's  writings  to  substantiate  a  good  part 
of  what  he  tells  us,  provided  the  quotations  are 
fair  and  accurate.  It  is  plain  that  Marcion  was  a 
Gnostic,  but  of  a  different  type  from  many  of  that 
period.  Most  of  the  Gnostics  might  be  fairly 
described  as  heathen  philosophers  at  bottom,  who 
had  attempted  to  incorporate  more  or  less  of  the 
gospel  into  their  systems.  Marcion  is  rather  to  be 
looked  upon  as  a  Christian  who  has  tried  to  in- 
corporate certain  ideas  of  heathen  philosophy  into 
his  faith.  He  was  perplexed  by  the  problem  of 
evil,  as  every  thinker  about  the  world  and  man 
has  been,  and  accepted  as  the  best  possible  solution 
the  dualism  of  Eastern  paganism.  Hippolytus 
maintains  that  Marcion  got  his  ideas  from  Em- 
pedocles,  and  gives  a  rather  elaborate  exposition 
of  the  latter's  philosophy  to  prove  it ;  but  he  only 
succeeds  in  making  plain  that  Marcion  did  not 
get  his  fundamental  ideas  from  the  Greek  philoso- 
pher.^ 

According  to  Tertullian,  confirmed  by  the  other 
Fathers,  and  by  numerous  quotations  from  Mar- 

^  Philosophumena,  vii.   17.   18. 


I02  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

cion  himself,  this  heretic  asserted  the  existence 
of  two  Gods,  or  ruhng  principles  {o.px^'^) ,  "  one 
judicial,  harsh,  mighty  in  war;  the  other  mild, 
placid,  and  simply  good."  ^  The  former  is  the 
Creator,  or  Demiurge,  the  Jehovah  of  the  Old 
Testament.  From  him  proceeds  the  whole  visible 
creation,  including  the  body  of  man,  and  there- 
fore everything  material  is  evil.  Marcion  at- 
tempted to  prove  this  last  part  of  his  doctrine 
from  such  Scripture  texts  as,  "  The  good  tree 
brings  not  forth  corrupt  fruit,  neither  the  corrupt 
tree  good  fruit,"  from  which  we  see  that  the 
good  God  cannot  be  the  author  of  this  evil  world. 
So  when  he  found  Jehovah  declaring,  "  I  am  he 
that  createth  evil  "  (Isa.  45  :  7),  he  argued  that 
this  Creator  could  not  be  the  good  God. 

From  this  fundamental  conception  of  the  uni- 
verse, Marcion  deduced  the  asceticism  that,  by 
general  consent,  was  characteristic  of  him  and  his 
followers.  'Marriage  among  them  was  forbidden : 
it  is  the  Creator  who  bids  men  increase  and  multi- 
ply, and  so,  to  the  believers  in  the  good  God,  mar- 
riage can  be  nothing  else  than  an  evil  and  un- 
chaste thing.  Tertullian  labors  hard  to  show  the 
difference  between  this  teaching  and  that  of  the 

^  Adv.  Marc,  i.  6. 


THE    VOICE    OF    HERESY  IO3 

Montanists,  and  the  best  he  can  make  of  it  is  to 
say  that  the  latter  "'  do  not  reject  marriage,  but 
simply  refrain  from  it  "  ^ — which  comes  pretty 
near  being  a  distinction  without  a  difference.  So 
far  did  the  Marcionites  push  this  hostility  to  mar- 
riage, that  they  would  baptize  only  celibates  and 
eunuchs — the  married  only  after  divorce,  or  in 
the  article  of  death.^  ^o  flesh  food  must  be  eaten, 
and  wine  was  forbidden  even  in  the  Eucharist. 
The  blameless  lives  of  the  Marcionites  are  fre- 
quently mentioned  by  their  adversaries,  and  the 
fact  is  even  recorded  that  there  were  not  a  few 
martyrs  among  them. 

Man's  fall,  according  to  Marcion,  shows  that 
the  Creator  was  neither  good,  prescient,  nor 
powerful — had  he  been  such,  no  such  issue  could 
have  happened.^  The  good  God  has  revealed  him- 
self in  Christ  Jesus  alone,  and  the  salvation  that 
Christ  came  to  bring  is  the  deliverance  of  men's 
souls  only,  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  their  bodies, 
which  perish  and  are  not  raised  again.  The 
Christ  who  came  to  save  men  was  not  the  Messiah 
of  the  prophets,  but  a  totally  different  being.  Nor 
was  he  really  a  man,  but  only  the  semblance  of 

^  Adv.  Marc,  i.   39.  'Ibid.,  iv.  11. 

^  Ibid.,  i.    19,  24,  27;    ii.   5. 


I04  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

one,  who  was  never  really  born  and  never  really 
suffered  on  the  cross.  For,  had  he  been  a  man,  he 
would  have  been  united  to  a  material  body,  in 
which  was  the  taint  inherent  in  all  material  things. 
Like  others  who  held  the  Docetic  view  of  Christ's 
person,  Marcion  quoted  Rom.  8:3,"  God  sent 
his  Son  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh  " — in  the 
I  likeness,  not  in  the  reality. 

Marcion  therefore  consistently  rejected  the  en- 
tire Old  Testament.  The  law  and  the  gospel,  as 
he  conceived  them,  proceeded  from  two  different 
Gods,  and  must  be  sharply  separated.  This  de- 
cision Tertullian  represents  as  *'  Marcion's  prin- 
cipal work."  Starting  from  such  premises,  Mar- 
cion professed  to  regard  Paul  as  the  only  apostle 
who  proclaimed  the  pure  gospel,  but  we  can  see 
this  important  difference  between  Marcion  and 
Paul :  Marcion  would  abolish  the  law,  because  it 
is  inherently  evil,  proceeding  as  it  does  from  the 
inferior  God;  Paul  would  abolish  the  law,  be- 
cause, while  it  came  from  the  good  God  (who  was 
to  Paul  the  only  God),  and  had  performed  a  good 
service  ("the  law  was  our  tutor  to  bring  us  to 
Christ  "),  it  had  been  fulfilled  in  Christ,  who  had 
nailed  the  law  and  its  ordinances  to  his  cross,  and 
made  the  law  obsolete  for  one  who  is  justified  by 


THE   VOICE    OF    HERESY  I05 

faith  in  Christ.  Ignoring  this  difference,  assu- 
ming that  Paul  and  he  occupied  common  ground, 
Marcion  argued  from  the  Pauhne  Epistles,  es- 
pecially from  Galatians,  the  essential  difference 
between  law  and  gospel,  and  maintained  that  the 
latter  only  is  binding  on  Christians. 

It  is  this  feature  of  his  teaching,  no  doubt,  that 
led  Neander  to  say  of  Marcion,  "  Taking  his 
stand,  in  the  spirit  of  true  Protestantism,  on  the 
ground  of  positive  Christianity,  he  would  admit 
that  nothing  but  the  words  of  Christ  and  of  his 
genuine  disciples  ought  to  be  considered  as  the 
fountainhead  of  the  true  gospel."  ^  From  the  ac- 
count already  given  of  this  heresy  and  the  philo- 
sophical grounds  on  which  it  rested,  it  will  be 
evident  how  little  of  the  real  Protestant  spirit 
there  was  in  Marcion.  Nor  are  other  writers  who 
speak  of  Marcion  as  a  "  reformer,"  and  deprecate 
the  treatment  of  him  as  a  heretic,  better  justified 
in  their  remarks.^  His  ideas,  as  we  have  seen, 
were  a  travesty  of  the  gospel.  Can  anybody 
doubt  that  if  Marcion  had  been  living  in  the  time 
of  Jesus,  and  had  propounded  to  our  Lord  his 
ideas,  they  would  have  been  pronounced  incom- 

1  "  History  of  the  Christian  Church,"  Vol.  I.,  p.  459- 

2  Ferris,    127  seq. 


I06  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

patible  with  the  gospel  that  Christ  proclaimed? 
Not  with  the  violent  language  of  Tertullian,  we 
may  be  sure,  but  none  the  less  decisively,  Jesus 
would  have  declared  his  utter  dissent  from  Mar- 
cion's  teaching  about  God,  and  the  corollaries 
drawn  from  that  teaching. 

But  Marcion  did  not  stop  with  his  repudiation 
of  the  Old  Testament;  he  also  refused  to  accept 
a  large  part  of  the  New.  This  was  the  necessary 
result  of  his  taking  Paul  as  the  sole  true  repre- 
sentative of  the  gospel  of  Christ.  A  large  part  of 
the  writings  accepted  as  Scripture  by  the  Catholic 
Church  of  the  second  century  could  not  possibly 
be  reconciled  with  the  teaching  and  practice  of 
the  Marcionites.  This  rejection  of  the  other 
apostolic  writings  was  justified  by  an  appeal  to 
1  the  attitude  that  Paul  himself  maintained  to 
i  Peter  and  Barnabas,  as  the  former  himself  de- 
scribes it  in  Galatians  (chap.  2).  The  Jewish 
training  of  the  other  apostles  had  led  them  to  mis- 
understand, misinterpret,  and  misrepresent  the 
real  gospel.  The  writings  of  such  men  were  so 
far  astray  that  they  could  not  be  accepted  as 
authoritative.  The  gospel  as  Christ  proclaimed 
it  and  as  Paul  interpreted  it,  had  been  vitiated  by 
interpolations  made  in  the  interest  of  those  who 


THE   VOICE   OF    HERESY  I07 

still  held  to  the  law,  and  a  critical  reconstruction 
was  necessary  even  in  the  case  of  those  documents 
that  were  to  be  accepted.  And  so  Marcion  re- 
vised boldly,  not  only  the  list  of  writings  then  cur- 
rent, but  even  the  writings  themselves,  and  gave 
out  first  a  list  and  then  a  text  that  he  and  his  fol- 
lowers were  willing  to  accept  as  authentic  and 
authoritative.  At  least,  this  is  what  the  Fathers 
charge  him  with  doing. 

His  list  consisted,  we  are  told,  of  two  parts: 
the  gospel,  or  Evangelicon,  and  the  Pauline  let- 
ters, or  Apostolicon.  His  gospel  seems  to  have 
been  substantially  the  canonical  Luke,  with  the 
omission  of  the  first  two  chapters,  and  numerous 
smaller  excisions  and  alterations,  to  make  it  suit 
his  purpose  better.  Tertullian  quotes  so  profusely 
from  this  alleged  gospel  of  Marcion  as  to  leave 
no  serious  doubt  as  to  its  character,  and  most 
modern  scholars  have  no  doubts.  The  Apostoli- 
con is  said  to  have  consisted  of  the  ten  Epistles 
that  bear  the  name  of  Paul,  excluding  the  Epistles 
to  Timothy  and  Titus,  but  including  Philemon.' 

^  Westcott  thinks  that  the  charges  of  altering  the  text  made  against 
Marcion  by  Tertullian  and  Epiphanius  are  not  borne  out  by  the  facts, 
at  least  in  the  case  of  the  Epistles.     The  passages  "  which  they  cite 
from  the  Epistles  are  certainly  insufficient  to  prove  the   point;    and  ^ 
on  the  contrary  they  go  far  to  show  that  Marcion  preserved  without  ( 
alteration  the  text  which  he  found  in  his  manuscript.     Of  the  seven  i 


io8 


OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 


V/^ 


Sv^^ 


Tertullian  ^  reproaches  Marcion  with  inconsist- 
ency in  thus  including  Philemon  in  his  canon, 
while  rejecting  three  others  that  were  also  ad- 
dressed to  individuals,  which  makes  plain  the 
grounds  of  Marcion's  decision.  His  objection, 
that  epistles  addressed  to  individuals  were  not 
suited  to  edification  of  the  church,  was  in  fact 
shared  by  many  who  were  perfectly  orthodox,  and 
such  an  objection  did  not  at  all  imply  doubt  of  the 
Pauline  authorship  of  the  writings. 

Marcion  was  a  contemporary  of  Justin  and 
Polycarp.  His  proposed  canon  is  a  clearer  testi- 
mony to  the  existing  acceptance  of  the  Provisional 
Canon  than  we  find  explicitly  given  by  any  or- 
thodox Father  of  the  period.  The  voice  of  heresy 
is  louder  than  the  voice  of  orthodoxy,  but  the 
two  blend  in  perfect  harmony.  Tertullian  per- 
ceived this  implicit  testimony  of  Marcion  to  the 
Canon  of  the  Catholic  Church,  and  was  quick  to 
take  advantage  of  the  controversial  weapon  thus 
made  available.     Chiding  his  antagonist  for  this 

readings  noticed  by  Epiphanius,  only  two  are  unsupported  by  other 
authority;  and  it  is  altogether  unlikely  that  Marcion  changed  other 
passages,  when,  as  Epiphanius  himself  shows,  he  left  untouched  those 
which  are  most  directly  opposed  to  his  system'  (p.  320).  This  shows 
how  unsafe  it  is  to  accept  without  sifting  the  charges  made  by  the 
Fathers  against  a  heretic. 
*  Adv.  Marc,  v.  21. 


THE    VOICE    OF    HERESY  I09 

mutilation  of  Luke's  text,  on  the  thin  pretext  of 
eliminating  interpolations — like  certain  critics 
of  our  times,  Marcion  regarded  anything  that 
could  not  be  made  to  square  with  his  theories  as 
an  "  interpolation  " — Tertullian  says,^  "  so  that 
while  he  amends  he  confirms  .  .  .  that  our  gos- 
pel is  the  prior  one/'  And  in  a  later  passage  he 
presses  this  argument  again :  "  The  Gospel  of 
Luke,  which  we  are  defending  with  all  our  might, 
has  stood  its  ground  from  its  very  first  publica- 
tion; whereas  Marcion's  Gospel  is  not  known  to 
most  people,  and  to  none  whatever  is  it  known 
without  being  at  the  same  time  condemned."  ^ 

The  point  was  well  taken.  Nothing  can  be 
clearer  than  that  Marcion's  proposed  canon  logic- 
ally implies  the  existence  of  a  larger  body  of 
writings  accepted  by  the  Catholic  Church.  No 
other  reason  than  the  existence  of  such  a  body  of 
accepted  Christian  Scriptures  can  possibly  be  as- 
signed for  his  making  a  special  canon  of  his  own. 
A  thing  that  is  avowedly  different,  must  have 
something  from  w^hich  to  differ.  We  are  not 
pressing  our  inferences  too  far,  probably,  when 
we  see  in  Marcion's  division  of  his  canon  into  two 
parts,  Evangelicon  and  Apostolicon,  a  recognition 

^  Adv.  Marc,  iv.  4.  ^  Ibid.,  iv.  5. 


no  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

of  the  existence  of  two  orthodox  collections  of 
Gospels  and  Epistles,  such  as  we  saw  reason  to 
believe  did  exist  long  before  the  close  of  the 
second  century.  And  when  Tertullian  speaks  of 
"  the  apostolic  Instrument "  ^  he  cannot  mean 
anything  else  than  an  orthodox  collection  similar 
to  Marcion's  Evangelicon. 

It  is  perfectly  true,  as  we  have  also  seen,  that 
in  Marcion's  day  the  Catholic  Church  had  taken 
/no  steps  to  make  a  formal  list  of  its  accepted 
xy  writings.    There  had  been  no  need  of  such  a  list. 
Definitions  are  never  found  in  the  history  of  the 
\  Church  until  something  makes  a  definition  neces- 
j  sary.     Marcion's  attack  on  the  canonicity  of  the 
/  writings  of  other  apostles  than  Paul  compelled  the 
/  Church  to  defend  those  writings.     The  conflict 
with  heretics  led  the  Catholic  Church  first  of  all  to 
that  assertion  of  its  exclusive  right  to  the  posses- 
sion and  interpretation  of  the  Christian  Scrip- 
tures, which  we  have  found  so  prominent  and  so 
emphatic  in  Irenseus,   and  ultimately  to  decide 
what  should  and  what  should  not  be  accepted  as 
Scripture. 

Some  eminent  critics,  of  whom  Harnack  is  a 
shining  example,  have  altogether  missed  the  sig- 

^De  Mod.,  12. 


THE   VOICE    OF    HERESY  III 

nificance  of  Marcion  and  his  canon.  That  dis- 
tinguished German  scholar  will  have  it  that  the 
conflict  with  Marcion  and  the  other  heretics  of 
the  second  century  compelled  the  Catholic  Church 
to  make  a  Canon  as  a  standard  of  orthodoxy. 
Now  this  is  a  flagrant  case  of  putting  the  cart 
before  the  horse,  so  far  at  least  as  Marcion  is  i 
concerned.  He  made  his  canon  by  the  simple  proc-  \ 
ess  of  rejecting  books  that  the  Catholic  Church 
already  accepted.  He  affected  the  Catholic  Canon 
only  by  provoking  a  more  emphatic  assertion  of 
the  authority  of  the  books  that  he  arbitrarily  re- 
jected. That  the  Catholic  Church  already  had  its 
Evangelicon,  and  that  this  consisted  of  our  four 
Gospels,  can  hardly  be  said  to  be  any  longer  an 
open  question.  That  it  had  its  Apostolicon,  con- 
sisting of  at  least  the  thirteen  Epistles  of  Paul, 
can  no  more  be  successfully  questioned.  That 
there  never  was  any  serious  doubt  of  the  canon- 
icity  of  First  John  and  First  Peter  is  equally  cer- 
tain. We  meet  the  first  positive  proofs  of  the 
acceptance  of  all  these  as  a  collection  in  Irenseus, 
perhaps,  but  that  is  because  of  the  paucity  of  the 
literature  for  the  generation  preceding  him.  A 
time  equal  at  least  to  a  generation  must  be  as- 
sumed for  the  growth  of  that  precision  and  cer- 


112  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

titude  which  mark  the  statements  of  Irenseus, 
especially  his  treatment  of  the  four  Gospels. 

Yet  more  influential  than  the  Marcionites  in 
/  the  develoj)ment  of  the  Canon  was  the  movement 
Up-friTi  \<pO  known  as  Montanism.  Though  the  historical  oc- 
casion of  this  sect  was  the  teaching  of  the  Phry- 
gian ''prophet"  whose  name  it  bears,  ils.  real 
cause  was  the  need  of  a  protest  against  the  grow- 
ing corruptions  and  worldliness  of  the  Church. 
It  was,  in  short,  the  first  attempt  at  a  Protestant 
Reformation — but  with  this  difference :  Protes- 
tantism of  the  sixteenth  century  took  its  stand  on 
'  the  exclusive  authority  of  the  Scriptures;  Protes- 
,  tantism  of  the  second  century  chose  the  less  tenable 
ground  of  personal  inspiration  as  the  basis  of  au- 
thority. The  Montanists  were  in  the  right  when 
they  insisted  on  the  importance  of  the  higher 
spiritual  life — a  life  begotten  by  the  Spirit  of  God, 
sanctified  by  the  same  Spirit,  and  directed  by  the 
Spirit  as  an  indwelling,  enlightening  and  guiding 
power.  They  anticipated  George  Fox  in  main- 
taining the  "  inner  light,"  and  outdid  Fox  in  their 
doctrine  of  prophecy. 

Of  Montanus  himself  we  know  very  little,  but 
it  was  generally  believed  that  he  had  been  a 
heathen  priest  prior  to  his  conversion,  probably 


THE    VOICE    OF    HERESY  II3 

of  the  goddess  Cybele.  Phrygia  was  the  center, 
in  the  second  century,  of  the  most  fanatical  and 
frenzied  of  the  heathen  cults,  in  which  was  found 
a  large  element  of  soothsaying  and  prophecy 
under  the  supposed  inspiration  of  the  gods. 
Montanus  seems  to  have  brought  these  heathen 
ideas  and  practices  over  into  his  new  faith,  merely 
giving  them  a  Christian  dress.  The  Christian 
doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  Paraclete,  was  the 
point  of  contact,  and  Montanus  had  little  difficulty 
in  adapting  it  to  his  purpose.  It  is  asserted  that 
he  proclaimed  himself  to  be  the  Paraclete,  and 
one  Father  goes  so  far  as  to  represent  him  as  say- 
ing, "  I  am  the  Father  and  the  Son  and  the  Para- 
clete." ^  But  this  is  a  late  authority,  and  is  either 
an  honest  blunder  or  a  slander. 

Sober  scholars  of  our  day  rather  incline  to  the 
view  that  all  such  statements  are  misunderstand- 
ings, if  not  perversions,  of  the  teaching  of  Mon- 
tanus. Certainly  he  claimed  to  be  inspired,  and 
one  of  the  sayings  attributed  to  him  with  most 
probability  is,  "  Behold,  man  is  like  a  lyre,  and  I 
play  on  him  like  a  plectrum."  He  is  probably 
speaking,  not  in  his  own  person,  but  of  the  Para- 
clete, and  he  says  no  more  than  the  familiar  il- 

*Didymus  de  Trinitate,   Migne's  Latin  Patrology,   39  :  984- 
H 


114  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

lustration  of  inspiration  in  the  patristic  literature. 
But  whatever  the  teaching  of  Montanus,  the  idea 
accepted  among  his  followers  was  that  our  Lord's 
promise  of  the  Paraclete  was  to  all  believers,  not 
to  the  apostles  only,  and  that  special  divine  in- 
spiration and  divine  revelations  did  not  cease 
with  the  apostolic  age.  Two  of  his  disciples  sur- 
passed Montanus  himself  as  prophets,  in  the 
estimation  of  his  followers — Priscilla  (or  Prisca) 
I  and  Maximilla,  married  women  who  left  their 
husbands  and  devoted  themselves  to  this  work  of 
prophesying.  The  few  fragments  of  their  say- 
ings that  have  been  preserved — they  do  not  ap- 
pear to  have  left  any  writings  ^ — are  by  no  means 
remarkable,  and  fail  to  account  for  the  respect 
with  which  Tertullian  quotes  them.^ 

We  cannot  tell  just  how  far  Tertullian  repre- 
sents the  Montanistic  party  in  this  respect,  but  he 

*  It  is  only  fair  to  add  that  Hippolytus  says  the  Montanists  "  have 
an  infinity  of  books  of  these  prophets  whose  words  they  neither  ex- 
amine by  reason,  nor  give  heed  to  those  who  can,  but  are  carried 
away  by  their  undiscriminating  faith  in  them,  thinking  that  they  learn 
through  their  means  something  more  than  the  law,  the  prophets,  and 
the  gospels."  But  the  vehemence  of  Hippolytus  throws  much  sus- 
picion on  his  accuracy.  That  the  followers  of  the  prophets  wrote 
down  some  sayings  is  all  that  we  are  warranted  in  inferring  from 
any  facts  now  known. 

2  In  a  number  of  passages  Tertullian  quotes  Montanistic  prophets, 
generally  if  not  always  women,  usually  without  naming  them.  De 
Resur,  Cam.,  ii;  De  Exhort.  Cast.,  lo;  De  Fuga.,  g,  ii;  Adv. 
Prax.  8,  30. 


THE   VOICE   OF    HERESY  II5 

at  least  contends  that  the  revelations  of  these! 
prophets  were  not  intended  to  supersede  Scrip-l 
ture,  but  to  supplement  it.    And  more  than  a  little  \ 
plausibility  must  be  conceded  to  his  arguing  of 
this  point : 

If  Christ  is  always,  and  prior  to  all,  equally  truth  is 
a  thing  sempiternal  and  ancient.  .  .  It  is  not  so  much 
novelty  as  truth  which  convicts  heresies.  Whatever 
savors  of  opposition  to  truth,  this  will  be  heresy,  even 
[if  it  be  an]  ancient  custom.  .  .  The  rule  of  faith,  in- 
deed, is  altogether  one,  alone  irremovable  and  irreform- 
able;  the  rule,  to  wit,  of  believing  in  one  only  God 
omnipotent,  the  Creator  of  the  universe,  and  his  Son, 
Jesus  Christ,  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  crucified  under 
Pontius  Pilate,  raised  again  the  third  day  from  the  dead, 
received  in  the  heavens,  sitting  now  at  the  right  [hand] 
of  the  Father,  destined  to  come  to  judge  quick  and  dead 
through  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh  as  well  as  of  the 
spirit.  This  law  of  faith  being  constant,  the  other  suc- 
ceeding points  of  discipline  and  conversation  admit  the 
"  novelty "  of  correction,  the  grace  of  God,  to  wit, 
operating  and  advancing  even  to  the  end.  For  what 
kind  of  [supposition]  is  it,  that  while  the  devil  is  always 
operating  and  adding  daily  to  the  ingenuities  of  in- 
iquity, the  work  of  God  should  either  have  ceased,  or 
else  desisted  from  advancing?  Whereas  the  reason  why 
the  Lord  sent  the  Paraclete  was,  that,  since  human  me- 
diocrity was  unable  to  take  in  all  things  at  once,  disci- 
pline should,  little  by  little,  be  directed  and  ordained 
and  carried  on  to  perfection,  by  that  Vicar  of  the  Lord, 
the  Holy  Spirit.  .  .  Nothing  is  without  stages  of 
growth;  all  things  await  their  season.  .  .  So  too  right- 
eousness— for  the  God  of  righteousness  and  of  crea- 
tion  is   the    same — was    first   in    a    rudimentary    state, 


Il6  OUR    NEW   TESTAMENT 

having  a  natural  fear  of  God:  from  that  stage  it  ad- 
vanced through  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  to  infancy; 
from  that  stage  it  passed  through  the  Gospel  to  the 
fervor  of  youth;  now  through  the  Paraclete  it  is  set- 
tling into  maturity.^ 

In  another  of  his  works,  TertulHan  makes  the 
chief  end  of  the  new  prophecy  the  interpretation 
of  the  Scriptures  already  given  :  ^ 

Now,  since  it  was  "  needful  that  there  should  be  here- 
sies, in  order  that  they  which  are  approved  might  be 
made  manifest,"  since  however  these  heresies  would  be 
unable  to  put  on  a  bold  front  without  some  counte- 
nance from  the  Scriptures,  it  therefore  is  plain  enough 
that  the  ancient  Holy  Writ  has  furnished  them  with 
sundry  materials  for  their  evil  doctrine,  which  very 
materials  indeed  [so  distorted]  are  refutable  from  the 
same  Scriptures.  It  was  fit  and  proper,  therefore,  that 
the  Holy  Ghost  should  no  longer  withhold  the  effusions 
of  his  gracious  light  upon  these  inspired  writings,  in 
order  that  they  might  be  able  to  disseminate  the  seeds 
[of  truth]  with  no  admixture  of  heretical  subtleties,  and 
pluck  out  of  it  their  tares.  He  has  accordingly  now  dis- 
persed all  the  perplexities  of  the  past,  and  their  self- 
chosen  parables  and  allegories,  by  the  open  and  per- 
spicuous explanation  of  the  entire  mystery,  through 
the  new  prophecy,  which  descends  in  copious  streams 
from  the  Paraclete.  If  you  will  only  draw  water  from 
his  fountains,  you  will  never  thirst  for  other  doctrine. 

*  This  is  a  passage  of  exceeding  interest,  on  account  of  this  ex- 
plicit statement  by  TertulHan  of  the  regula  fidei,  or  Rule  of  Faith, 
to  which  he  makes  so  many  references  in  his  writings.  It  is  the 
oldest  recorded  form  of  the  Apostles'  Creed  (De  Virg.  V eland,  i), 
A  larger  form  is  given  elsewhere  by  TertulHan  {De  Praescr.  Haer. 
13). 

*De  Resur.  Cam.,  63. 


THE   VOICE    OF    HERESY  II7 

These  claims  of  the  Montanistic  prophets,  and 
their  acceptance  and  advocacy  by  a  man  so  highly 
endowed  by  nature  and  so  thoroughly  trained  in 
controversy  as  Tertullian,  compelled  the  Catholic 
Church  to  weigh  well  both  the  claims  themselves 
and  the  grounds  on  which  they  rested.     There 
was  no  valid  a  priori  reason  for  denying  the  pos- 
sibility of  continuous  inspiration  and  revelation 
in  the  Church ;  nor  could  it  be  successfully  main- 
tained  that  this   was   any   novelty   in   Christian 
doctrine.    The  earliest  Christian  documents,  such 
as  the  Didache,  show  plainly  that  the  prophetic 
gift  was  not  supposed  to  cease  with  the  apostles 
— or     even     the     apostolate     itself — for     both 
"  prophets  "  and  "  apostles  "  are  distinctly  rec- 
ognized as  still  existing  at  the  time  of  the  com- 
pilation of  that  book.    Whether  these  Montanistic 
*'  prophets  "  had  a  genuine  gift  of  prophecy  was 
a  question  of  fact,  rather  than  of  doctrine.     The 
practical  test  recommended  by  our  Lord  himself 
was  therefore  applied,  and  the  tree  was  judged 
by  its  fruits.     The  extravagant  claims  made  by 
the    Montanists    for    the    inspiration    of    their 
prophets  did  not  commend  themselves  to  Chris- 
tian believers  at  large   as   well   founded.      The 
majority    of    Christians     discovered     in     these 


Il8  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

prophesyings  little  resemblance  to  the  prophetic 
gift  of  the  apostolic  age,  or  to  those  endowments 
supposed  to  remain  in  the  church  in  the  sub- 
apostolic  age.  They  saw  rather  in  these  fren- 
zied utterances  a  likeness  to  the  ecstatic  orgasms 
that  Christians  had  always  ascribed  to  demonic 
or  diabolic  agency,  instead  of  the  Holy  Spirit's 
influence. 

It  was  most  unfortunate  for  Montanism  that  its 
purpose  of  reformation  should  have  become  com- 
plicated with  this  assertion  of  the  inspiration  of 
"  prophets  '*  and  the  divine  authority  of  their 
"  revelations."  On  the  main  issue  the  Montanists 
were  right,  but  our  sympathies  must  go  with  the 
Catholic  Church  in  the  matter  of  these  prophetic 
claims,  and  we  cannot  but  rejoice  that  this  idea  of 
continuous  prophecy  was  not  established  as  the 
orthodox  doctrine  among  Christians.  It  would 
have  led  infallibly  to  great  confusion,  if  not  to 
hopeless  disorder.  Much  has  been  said,  and  said 
with  great  truth,  of  the  errors  that  have  been  com- 
mitted in  the  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures  by 
the  learned  scholars  of  the  church.  The  present 
age  is  perfectly  convinced  that  the  greatest  theolo- 
gians of  the  past  have  failed  to  include  all  truth 
in  their  systems.    Protestants  at  least  see  clearly 


THE   VOICE   OF    HERESY  II9 

that  there  are  great  defects,  misunderstandings, 
errors  even,  in  the  decrees  of  councils  regarding 
the  things  that  must  be  beheved  by  all  Christians. 
But  does  anybody  suppose  that  the  progress  of 
Christian  doctrine  would  have  been  more  steady 
or  stable,  or  that  results  more  assured  would  have 
been  reached,  if,  instead  of  being  formulated  by 
the  sober  doctors  and  churchmen  of  the  ages,  it 
had  grown  under  the  continuous  "  revelations  " 
of  neurotic  women,  like  those  in  whom  Tertul- 
lian  believed  so  unquestionably?  Or  where 
should  we  be  to-day  if  every  generation  had  pro- 
duced a  Mrs.  Eddy? 

And  yet  the  Catholics  were  by  no  means  con-  ; 
sistent  in  their  opposition  to  the  Montanistic  idea. 
As  it  so  often  happened  in  the  development  of 
the  Church,  what  was  good  in  Montanism  was 
decisively  rejected,  while  the  very  evil  that  for  a 
time  had  been  successfully  withstood  was  even-  / 
tually  assimilated.  In  the  end  the  Catholic  Church 
accepted  as  orthodox  the  idea  of  continual  in- 
spiration and  revelation,  differing  from  the  Mon- 
tanists  only  in  the  question  as  to  where  the  in- 
spiration is  lodged.  The  Montanist  said,  In  the 
individual  believer ;  the  Catholics  maintained  that 
the  continuous  inspiration  was  promised  to  the 


120  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

whole  Church,  and  therefore  only  when  the  whole 

Church  speaks  are  men  certain  that  the  Holy 

j  Spirit  has  led  the  followers  of  Christ  into  the 

truth.     After  the  Council  of  Nice,  this  doctrine 

i 

\  was  further  specialized,  and  thenceforth  it  was 
maintained  as  orthodox  doctrine  that  the  voice  of 
i  the   Spirit   is  certainly  heard   only  through   an 
ecumenical  council. 

But  in  the  second  and  third  centuries  the 
Catholic  Church  could  not  or  would  not,  and  at 
any  rate  did  not,  accept  the  Montanistic  claim  to 
\  superior  spiritual  insight.  The  Catholic  view  was 
\  that  the  faith  had  once  for  all  been  delivered  to 
the  saints.  This  gave  an  aspect  of  finality  to  the 
apostolic  doctrine,  and  to  the  Canon  in  which  that 
doctrine  was  embodied.  Accordingly,  in  this  con- 
test with  the  Montanists,  the  idea  of  a  closed 
Canon  seems  first  to  have  risen  to  consciousness 
among  Catholics.  The  statement  of  the  doctrine 
seems  clearly  to  be  the  result  of  the  position  in 
which  the  Catholic  Church  found  itself.  The 
most  effective  weapon  against  the  Montanists  and 
their  claims  was  to  put  forth  the  counter-claim 
that  inspiration  of  individuals  ceased  with  the 
apostles,  and  that  in  the  apostolic  writings  the 
I      Church  had  a  definite  body  of  truth  committed  to 


THE   VOICE    OF    HERESY  121  \ 


it   for  preservation   and   defense,   to   which   no 
additions  could  be  made/ 

Yet  it  should  not  be  supposed  that  the  Catholic 
Church  newly  invented  this  idea,  simply  because 
it  was  found  to  be  a  convenient  controversial 
weapon.  The  truth  is  rather  that  the  idea  was 
already  latent  in  the  subconsciousness  of  Chris- 
tians, and  that  the  controversy  merely  had  the 
effect  of  bringing  about  an  earlier  formal  state- 
ment than  would  otherwise  have  occurred.  Once 
stated,  the  exigencies  of  controversy  led  the 
Catholic  party  to  lay  great  stress  on  it,  and  so 
make  it  a  permanent  part  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church.  But  there  can  be  little  doubt,  if  any,  that 
the  earlier  Fathers,  from  Ignatius  down,  would 
have  been  as  ready  as  Irenseus  to  state  the  doc- 
trine, had  there  been  occasion  to  do  so,  and  that 
they  would  have  been  as  much  shocked  as  the 
opponents  of  the  Montanists  by  the  claim  that 
any  post-apostolic  writing  should  be  put  on  the 
same  plane  of  authority  with  the  writings  of  the 

1  The  last  clause  was  the  new  and  significant  thing.  As  con- 
cerned the  written  documents,  there  was  no  real  issue  between 
Montanist  and  Catholic.  But  now  the  idea  became  fixed  in 
Catholic  circles  that  the  apostles  alone  possessed  full  inspiration, 
and  hence  their  writings  alone  were  to  be  accepted  as  authoritative. 
Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  iv.  21.  133  cf.  TertulHan  De  Exhort.  4;  De 
V eland,  Virg.,  4;  De  Resurrec,  24;  De  Jejun.,  15;  De  Pud.,  12; 
De  Monog.  4. 


122  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

apostles.  From  this  time  forward,  then,  apos- 
;  \  toHcity  became  the  touchstone  of  canonicity — 
!  that  is  to  say,  not  the  only  test,  but  by  all  means 

the  most  important  test,  to  which  all  writings 
were  subjected.  The  further  development  of  this 
idea  belongs,  however,  to  a  later  chapter. 

Another  peculiarity  of  the  Montanists  had  an 
i<^X    important  effect  on  the  development  of  the  Canon, 
V>v"^^  namely,  their  chiliastic  ideas,  not  indeed  intro- 

V  ^  duced  by  them,  but  by  the  third  century  so  identi- 

i\l  d^"^  ^^^  ^^^^  them  as  to  become  a  distinct  feature  of 

{^^^  their  teaching.     Chiliasm  had  been  latent  in  the 

early  church,  and  often  appears  in  the  writings 
of  the  second  century,  but  the  church  had  rather 
tolerated  than  approved  it,  and  it  had  never  be- 
fore been  propagated  by  a  party.  The  Epistle 
of  Barnabas  (chap.  15)  reasons  that  since  "  a  day 
with  the  Lord  is  as  a  thousand  years,"  God  will 
finish  everything  and  bring  the  world  to  an  end 
in  six  days,  or  six  thousand  years  from  the  crea- 
tion, when  he  will  rest  a  day,  another  thousand 
years,  the  millennial  Sabbath.  This  will  be  fol- 
lowed by  an  eighth  day,  the  eternal  Sabbath,  as  a 
type  of  which  Christians  observe  the  Lord's  Day. 
Irenaeus  ^  repeats  the  same  idea,  at  greater  length. 

^  Contr.  Haer.j  v.  32-35. 


THE   VOICE   OF    HERESY  1 23 

Eusebius  quotes  Papias  as  saying  "  that  there  will 
be  a  period  of  some  thousand  years  after  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  that  the  king- 
dom of  Christ  will  be  set  up  in  material  form 
on  this  very  earth."  But  Eusebius  ^  criticizes 
Papias  as  '*  not  perceiving  that  the  things  said 
by  them,  the  apostles,  were  spoken  mystically  in 
figures." 

But  of  all  the  early  Christian  writers,  perhaps 
Justin  ^  was  the  most  explicit  in  his  statement  of 
the  chiliastic  notion.  In  avowing  his  opinion  he 
says  expressly  that  "  many  who  belong  to  the 
pure  and  pious  faith,  and  are  true  Christians, 
think  otherwise."    He  goes  on  to  say: 

But  I  and  others,  who  are  right-minded  Christians 
on  all  points,  are  assured  that  there  will  be  a  resurrec- 
tion of  the  dead,  and  a  thousand  years  in  Jerusalem, 
which  will  then  be  built,  adorned,  and  enlarged,  as  the 
prophets  Ezekiel  and  Isaiah  and  others  declare.  [But 
Justin  does  not  say  this  will  occur  at  once,  which  was 
the  Montanistic  idea.]  .  .  .  And  further,  there  was  a 
certain  man  with  us,  whose  name  was  John,  one  of  the 
apostles  of  Christ,  who  prophesied  by  a  revelation  that 
was  made  to  him,  that  those  who  believed  in  our 
Christ  would  dwell  a  thousand  years  in  Jerusalem;  and 
that  thereafter  the  general,  and  in  short,  the  eternal 
resurrection  and  judgment  of  all  men  would  likewise 
take  place. 

iH.  E.,  Hi.  39.  -Dial.  c.  Try.,  80. 


124  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

The  Montanists,  therefore,  differed  from  their 
predecessors  mainly  in  the  clearness  and  precision 
of  their  views  regarding  the  speedy  coming  of  the 
Lord.  If  we  may  trust  Epiphanius  ^  and  other 
Fathers,  one  of  their  prophets  (Priscilla?)  testi- 
fied that  the  Lord  had  appeared  to  her  and  re- 
vealed the  very  place  where  the  parousia  would 
occur,  and  the  exact  site  of  the  New  Jerusalem. 
This  was  the  little  town  of  Pepuza,  in  Phrygia. 
Such  pretended  "  revelations  "  were,  rightly  or 
wrongly,  held  responsible  by  the  Catholic  party 
for  much  of  the  fanaticism  and  disorder  that  they 
charged  upon  the  Montanists,  and  with  the  rejec- 
tion of  these  the  Church  began  to  look  with  dis- 
favor on  all  chiliastic  notions. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Montanists  appealed 
confidently  to  Scripture  in  confirmation  of  their 
views,  as  chiliasts  have  continued  to  do  until  this 
day.  The  most  sober  statement  of  the  doctrine  is 
that  of  Tertullian :  ^ 

But  we  do  confess  that  a  kingdom  is  promised  to  us 
upon  the  earth,  although  before  heaven,  only  in  another 
state  of  existence;  inasmuch  as  it  will  be  after  the  resur- 
rection for  a  thousand  years  in  the  divinely  built  city 
of  Jerusalem,  "  let  down  from  heaven,"  which  the 
apostle  also  calls  "  our  mother  from  above  ";   and  while 

^  Haer.,  49.   i.  ^  Adv.  Marc,  iii.  25. 


THE   VOICE   OF    HERESY  I25 

declaring  that  our  noK^rev^a,  or  citizenship,  is  in  heaven, 
he  predicates  of  it  that  it  is  really  a  city  in  heaven. 
This  both  Ezekiel  had  knowledge  of  and  the  Apostle 
John  beheld.  And  the  word  of  the  new  prophecy  which 
is  part  of  our  belief,  attests  how  it  foretold  how  there 
would  be  for  a  sign  a  picture  of  this  very  city  exhibited 
to  view  previous  to  its  manifestation.  This  prophecy, 
indeed,  has  been  very  lately  fulfilled  in  an  expedition 
to  the  East.  For  it  is  evident  from  the  testimony  of 
even  heathen  witnesses,  that  in  Judea  there  was  sus- 
pended in  the  sky  a  city  early  every  morning  for  forty 
days.  As  the  day  advanced  the  entire  figure  of  its  walls 
would  wane  gradually,  and  sometimes  it  would  vanish 
instantly. 

It  is  evident  from  this  and  numerous  other  pas- 
sages that  the  Montanists  accepted  and  used  the 
same  Scriptures  that  were  honored  in  the  Catholic 
Church.  In  a  single  treatise,  "  Concerning  Flight 
in  Persecution,"  Tertullian  ^  quotes  from  nearly 
the  whole  Provisional  Canon;  and  in  the  table 
of  quotations  appended  to  his  writings  in  the 
"  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  "  may  be  found  citations 
from  almost  every  chapter  of  that  Canon.  Also 
he  quotes  from  Hebrews,  James,  and  Peter,  books 
that  had  not  yet  been  so  generally  accepted. 

1  It  would  lead  us  too  far  afield  to  discuss  here  the  interesting 
question  of  the  source  of  Tertullian's  quotations.  Though  a  good 
Greek  scholar,  and  familiar  with  the  Septuagint,  presumably  there- 
fore able  to  quote  from  the  original  New  Testament  writings  had 
he  chosen,  he  apparently  uses  an  old  Latin  version,  made  during 
the  second  century,  one  of  those  that  Jerome  afterward  revised 
in  his  preparation   of  the   Vulgate    (see    Reuss.,   p.    iii). 


126 


OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 


J 


I    But  of  all  the  New  Testament  books,  none  was 
so  frequently  or  confidently  cited  by  the  Mon- 
tanists  as  the  Apocalypse,  especially  the  passage 
20  :  1-6.     They  set  the  fashion  of  a  wrong  exe- 
gesis of  this  famous  passage  that  has  prevailed  to 
our  own  day.    Carefully  examined  and  fairly  in- 
■■  terpreted,  it  will  be  seen  that  this  vision  of  John 
concerns  only  the  saints  who  have  suffered  as 
witnesses  of  Christ  in  the  great  persecution  of 
I  the  beast,  not  a  resurrection  of  all  the  righteous 
i  dead  at  the  end  of  the  world,  as  the  Montanists 
[   asserted  and  as  so  many  exegetes  have  continued 
;    to  maintain.     As  for  the  ''  thousand  years,"  the 
I   symbolical  use  of  numbers  throughout  the  Apoca- 
\  lypse  forbids  us  to  interpret  this  literally.     But 
\  instead   of  proposing   a  better  exegesis  of  the 
■  Apocalypse,  in  the  place  of  the  faulty  Montanistic 
interpretation,  the  Catholic  party  found  it  much 
easier  to  raise  doubts  concerning  the  canonicity  of 
the  book,  and  even  its  apostolic  origin.     On  this 
account  the  Apocalypse  was  everywhere  less  es- 
teemed for  a  time  than  would  otherwise  have 
/  been  the  case,  and  we  find  a  tendency  in  the  East, 
especially,  not  only  during  the  height  of  the  Mon- 
.    tanistic  controversy,  but  for  a  long  time  after- 
ward, to  drop  this  book  from  the  Canon. 


THE   VOICE   OF    HERESY  1 27 

Eusebius  ^  quotes  Dionysius  the  Great  (about 
250)  against  the  book,  which  the  latter  says  many 
ascribe  to  Cerinthus,  who  was  carnal  in  nature 
and  so  imagined  the  kingdom  of  Christ  to  be  an 
earthly  one.  Dionysius  remarks :  ''  That  this  is 
the  work  of  one  John  I  do  not  deny,  and  I  agree 
that  it  is  also  the  work  of  a  holy  and  inspired 
man.  But  I  cannot  readily  admit  that  he  was 
the  apostle,  the  son  of  Zebedee,  the  brother  of 
James,  by  whom  the  Gospel  of  John  and  the 
Catholic  Epistle "  were  written.  .  .  But  I  think 
he  was  some  other  one  of  those  in  Asia,  as  they 
say  that  there  are  two  monuments  in  Ephesus, 
each  bearing  the  name  of  John."  The  bishop 
goes  on  to  discuss  the  style  of  the  Gospel  and 
Epistle  as  compared  with  that  of  the  Apocalypse, 
quite  in  the  manner  of  a  modern  critic,  but  he 
does  not  fail  to  make  it  clear  that  these  critical 
doubts  were  first  suggested  by  the  content  of 
John's  revelations  and  the  encouragement  that 
they  gave  to  chili  asm. 

Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  a  little  later  omits  the 
Apocalypse  from  the  list  of  canonical  books  given 

*H.  £.,  vii.  25- 

2  The  use  of  the  singular  number  here  is  significant.  It  shows 
that  in  the  middle  of  the  third  century  only  the  First  Epistle  of 
John  was  canonical  in  the  East. 


128  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

in  his  lectures  to  catechumens/  and  even  forbids 
the  reading  of  it :  "  But  let  the  rest  be  put  aside 
in  a  secondary  rank.  And  whatever  books  are 
not  read  in  churches,  these  read  not  even  by 
thyself,  as  thou  has  heard  me  say."  But,  of 
course,  what  was  forbidden  to  catechumens  should 
not  be  regarded  as  forbidden  to  more  mature 
Christians,  though  the  effect  of  such  injunctions 
would  certainly  be  to  discourage  the  reading  of 
the  Apocalypse  by  any. 

In  this  attitude  of  suspicion  and  discourage- 
ment toward  this  book,  Cyril  and  Dionysius  fairly 
represent  the  whole  Eastern  Church  of  the  third 
century.  The  Apocalypse  is  omitted  from  the 
Peshito  version,  of  which  more  will  be  said  in 
a  later  chapter.  Theodore,  Chrysostom,  and 
Theodoret,  foremost  among  the  Greek  Fathers  of 
this  period,  while  they  do  not  definitely  reject  the 
book,  refrain  from  quoting  it  as  Scripture  in  any  of 
their  extant  writings.  Its  place  as  the  last  book  in 
all  the  early  MSS  and  versions  that  contain  it — a 
place  that  it  still  holds  in  our  New  Testament — 
mutely  witnesses  to  the  fact  of  its  late  reception 
into  the  Canon.  It  is  the  one  instance  of  a  book 
that  was  first  accepted^then-doubted,  and -finally 

*  iv.  36. 


THE    VOICE    OF    HERESY  1 29 

received  as  authoritative  by  the  whole  church. 
But  not  until  the  time  of  Athanasius  does  the  East 
appear  to  have  made  up  its  mind  definitely  in 
favor  of  its  acceptance/ 

In  the  West,  where  Montanism  existed  for  a 
time,  but  was  never  formidable,  the  Apocalypse 
continued  to  be  highly  esteemed.  We  learn  from 
Eusebius  that  Gains,  a  Roman  presbyter  early  in 
the  third  century,  a  contemporary  of  Tertullian, 
agreed  with  certain  heretics  in  ascribing  the 
Apocalypse  to  Cerinthus,  but  the  West  was  prac- 
tically unanimous  in  its  allegiance  to  the  book.  It 
seems  fairly  evident  too,  that  to  this  stanch  alle- 
giance of  the  West  we  owe  the  final  acceptance  of 
the  book  and  its  place  in  the  Canon. 

Our  estimate  of  the  influence  of  heresy  on  the 
Canon  would  not  be  complete  without  at  least  a 

^  It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  while  the  Apocalypse  was  one  of  the 
earliest  books  to  be  received,  it  was  the  last  to  be  persistently 
doubted.  It  is  quoted  in  the  letter  of  the  churches  of  Lyons  and 
Vienne,  which  cited  Rev.  22:11  with  the  words,  "  that  the  Scrip- 
ture might  be  fulfilled"  (Eusebius,  H.  E.,  v.  59).  Melito  of 
Sardis  wrote  a  commentary  on  this  book  about  A.  d.  170  (Eusebius, 
H.  E.,  iv.  29),  the  first  book  of  the  New  Testament  to  be  so 
honored.  Hippolytus  quotes  at  length  chap.  17,  18,  and  ascribes 
the  book  to  "  blessed  John,  apostle  and  disciple  of  the  Lord  "  (ANF 
5  :  211).  It  is  found  in  the  old  Latin  version,  as  far  back  as  we  can 
trace  it.  On  the  other  hand,  Anastasius,  patriarch  of  Antioch,  gives 
a  canonical  list  as  late  as  599,  in  which  the  Apocalypse  is  not 
mentioned,  even  among  twenty-five  apocryphal  books  outside  of  the 
Canon. 


130  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

glance  at  several  other  heresies  of  the  second  cen- 
tury, less  influential  than  the  two  that  we  have  been 
considering,  but  nevertheless  not  to  be  overlooked. 
Q<J,  I     The  first  of  these  were  the  Alogi,  about  whom 

Hug  has  sarcastically  remarked  that  hitherto  the 
less  scholars  have  known  about  them  the  more 
they  have  written.  Nearly  all  that  anybody  really 
knows  of  this  sect  is  that  Epiphanius  invented  the 
name  to  describe  certain  heretics,  about  170, 
who  agreed  neither  with  Cerinthus  nor  the  Mon- 
/tanists,  but  rejected  the  Gospel  and  Epistle  of 
John  on  account  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Logos 
contained  in  them.  According  to  Epiphanius  ^ 
they  also  objected  to  the  Apocalypse,  on  the 
ground  that  it  was  valueless;  he  represents  them 
as  saying,  "  What  value  has  the  Apocalypse  of 
John  for  me,  speaking  as  it  does  of  seven  angels 
and  seven  trumpets."  It  is  highly  probable  that 
Irenaeus  refers  to  the  same  party,  and  the  Gains 
mentioned  above  is  thought  to  have  belonged  to 
them.  The  heretics  whom  Irenaeus  describes, 
without  naming  them,  rejected  both  the  Gospel  of 
John  and  the  Spirit  of  prophecy.  The  Alogi  not 
only  rejected  the  Johannine  writings  but,  like 
Gains,   ascribed   their  authorship  to  Cerinthus. 

*  C.  Haer.,  iii.  ii.  9. 


THE   VOICE   OF    HERESY 


131 


Inasmuch  as  Cerinthus  was  a  Docetist,  utterly 
opposed  to  John's  doctrine,  and  so  much  disap- 
proved by  the  apostle  that  tradition  represents 
him  as  rushing  out  of  a  bath  into  which  the  heretic 
had  entered,  rather  than  remain  under  the  same 
roof  with  such  a  false  teacher,  no  less  probable 
author  of  these  writings  could  well  have  been  as- 
signed/ It  is  much  as  if  a  writer  of  our  day  were 
to  assert  that  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
was  not  really  composed  by  Thomas  Jefferson  but 
by  Benedict  Arnold. 

It  will  be  seen,  therefore,  that  the  fact  of  their 
rejection  of  John's  writings  is  the  only  definite 
thing  known  about  the  Alogi,  and  whether  they 
were  few  or  many  we  can  only  conjecture.  That 
there  was  such  a  party  or  sect  in  the  last  quarter 
of  the  second  century  is  additional  testimony  to 
the  general  acceptance  of  the  fourth  Gospel  and 
other  Johannine  writings  at  that  time,  and  for  at 
least  a  generation  previous,  while  this  heretical 
attack  on  the  authority  of  these  writings  led  the 
Church  to  a  more  emphatic  assertion  of  their 
authenticity,  inspiration,  and  authority. 

The  Encratites,  of  whom  we  learn  from  Ire- 
naeus  and  other  Fathers,  were  a  sect  who  pushed 

*  Westcott,  254. 


:f-^,rat^-<*<t 


132  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

asceticism  to  what  was  considered  a  heretical  ex- 
treme.   According  to  Eusebius,^  they  received  the 
I  Gospels,  but  rejected  the  Pauline  Epistles  and  the 
/Acts,  thus  very  nearly  reversing  the  position  of 
I  the  Marcionites.     Some  of  them  at  least  received 
the   Old   Testament.      Eusebius,    following   Ire- 
^  nseus,  credits  the  origin  of  the  sect  to  Tatian,  and 
it  seems  at  least  certain  that  Tatian  joined  them. 
What  they  probably  could  not  accept  in  the  Paul- 
ine Epistles  was  the  doctrine  of  Christian  liberty 
there  set  forth,  which  was  of  course  irreconcilable 
with  their  teaching  of  extreme  and  compulsory 
asceticism. 

We  have  now  heard  all  that  the  voice  of  heresy 
has  to  tell  us  regarding  the  progress  of  the  Canon. 
It  would  be  easy  to  exaggerate  its  importance — 
^     some  have  exaggerated  it.     Heresy  was  chiefly  a 
j^^^stimulus  that  hastened  a  growth  already  begun — 
'     in   a  single  instance,   a  handicap  that  retarded 
progress.     The  necessity  of  defending  what  had 
come  to  be  accepted  as  the  Catholic  faith,  the 
orthodox  belief,  and  of  finding  for  it  a  basis  of 
generally  recognized  authority,  apart  from  mere 
tradition,  developed  in  the  Church  a  conscious- 
ness of  the  value  of  the  Scriptures  more  speedily 

*  H.  E.,  iv.  29,  5. 


THE   VOICE   OF    HERESY  I33 

than  would  otherwise  have  been  produced. 
Heresy  did  not  cause  any  new  development,  or  give 
rise  to  any  new  doctrine.  It  was  like  the  foreign 
body  introduced  into  a  saturated  solution,  which 
instantly  becomes  the  center  of  crystalization. 
The  ideas  about  the  Canon  were  already  in  the 
Church,  suspended  in  solution,  so  to  speak;  all 
that  was  needed  was  an  adequate  occasion  to  in- 
duce the  Church  to  define  these  ideas  with  pre- 
cision. Heresy  furnished  that  occasion,  and  in 
that  manner  and  to  that  extent,  and  thus  alone,  it 
became  an  important  historical  factor  in  the  for- 
mation of  the  Canon. 


Y 

THE  "PROVISIONAL"  CANON 


DURING  the  last  three  decades  of  the  second 
century,  it  is  plain  that  there  had  come 
to  be  a  general  understanding  in  the  Catholic 
churches  that  twenty  books  of  our  present  Canon 
were  to  be  accepted  as  Scripture  and  publicly 
read  in  Christian  worship:  the  four  Gospels,  the 
Acts,  thirteen  Epistles  of  Paul,  First  Peter,  and 
First  John.  Irenseus,  as  we  have  seen,  quotes  all 
of  these,  and  in  such  a  way  as  clearly  to  imply 
that  for  some  time  they  had  held  unquestioned 
the  place  of  authority  that  he  ascribes  to  them — 
probably  for  a  generation  at  least.  Though  cer- 
tain heretics  had  questioned  some  of  these  twenty 
books,  there  had  never  been  any  doubts  in  the 
Catholic  Church  about  their  authenticity  or  au- 
thority. We  have  earlier  and  stronger  evidence 
of  the  acceptance  of  some  than  we  have  of  others, 
but  not  a  particle  of  evidence  against  the  canon- 
icity  of  any.  Just  as  rapidly  as  they  became 
known  throughout  the  church  they  seem  to  have 
been  accepted. 

There  were  other  books  at  this  time  recognized 

137 


138  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

as  of  actual  or  virtual  apostolic  authorship.  Many 
believed  these  to  be  inspired,  some  churches  read 
them,  and  eventually  some  of  them  became  canoni- 
cal; but  down  to  the  year  200  they  were  not  so 
generally  received  as  Scripture  as  to  be  entitled 
to  canonical  rank.  There  were  also  in  circulation 
books,  not  a  few,  that  were  generally  believed 
not  to  be  Scripture,  though  some  of  them  bore 
the  names  of  apostles.  Irenaeus  ^  speaks  of  the 
"  unspeakable  number  of  apocryphal  and  spurious 
writings  of  the  Marcosians,"  and  these  terms 
{d.n6xpij(pa^  voda)  were  thenceforth  used  to  de- 
scribe uncanonical  writings. 

There  is  little  need  to  multiply  proofs  of  the 
above  statements.  In  the  first  place,  sufficient  evi- 
dence has  been  furnished  in  previous  chapters, 
cited  there  for  a  different  purpose,  which  it  would 
be  superfluous  to  repeat.  In  the  second  place, 
proofs  are  needless  because  the  facts  are  generally 
admitted.  Scholars  of  all  schools  admit  that  with 
Irenaeus  we  have  a  Canon,  in  the  sense  of  a  defi- 
nite number  of  books  everywhere  received.  Har- 
nack  IS  inclined,  however,  to  lay  stress  on  a 
certain  feature  of  the  age  of  Irenaeus.  It  is  the 
age  that  witnesses  the  definite  establishment  of 

*  Adv.  Haer.,  i.  20.  i. 


CANON  139 

the  Catholic  Church.  The  churches  scattered 
throughout  the  Roman  empire  have  awakened  to 
self-consciousness  and  a  sense  of  solidarity  per- 
vades them.  To  justify  this  unity  of  faith  and 
practice  a  definite  body  of  apostoiic  literature  has 
become  a  necessity ;  hence  a  Canon  "  suddenly  "  ^ 
appears  with  Irenaeus. 

This  is  doubtless  a  rational  account  of  the 
facts  in  all  but  the  assertion  of  suddenness.  The 
appearance  of  the  Canon  is  sudden  only  to  a 
reader  of  the  Fathers,  and  to  him  only  in  the 
sense  that  there  is  a  gap  of  about  a  generation 
between  Justin  and  Irenaeus,  which  is  practically 
unfilled  by  any  surviving  literature.  In  this  in- 
terval we  are  entitled  to  assume  the  continuance 
of  the  process  that  we  have  seen  clearly  beginning 
in  the  first  half  of  the  second  century.  When 
we  arrive  at  Irenaeus  we  see  the  point  of  develop- 
ment reached  without  having  seen  the  process. 
The  impression  of  suddenness  is  thus  wholly  due 
to  our  ignorance  of  what  happened,  and  has  no 
objective  reality. 

This  clearly  appears  when  we  consider  the  at- 
titude of  Irenaeus  to  the  four  Gospels.    He  makes 

^"Das  Neue  Testament  um  das  Jahr  200,"  p.   no;    "History  of 
Dogma,"  II.,  43. 


I40  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

the  acceptance  of  these  books — no  more,  no  fewer 

— a  final  test  of  orthodoxy.  But  everything  that 
we  have  discovered  in  our  previous  investigation 
is  a  preparation  for  just  that  attitude  toward  the 
Gospels;  and  no  reader  of  Justin,  for  example, 
has  any  reason  to  be  surprised  by  what  he  finds 
in  Irenaeus.  Tatian's  Diatessaron,  composed  about 
170,  is  an  incontrovertible  evidence  of  the  recep- 
tion of  all  four  Gospels  as  early  as  the  youth 
of  Irenseus.  A  fragment  from  the 
writmgs  of  Apollmaris  of  Hierapo- 
lis  confirms  this  testimony,  if  it  needed  confirma- 
tion. Speaking  of  the  celebration  of  Easter,  he 
says :  "  Some  say  that  the  Lord  ate  the  lamb  with 
his  disciples  on  the  fourteenth  [of  Nisan],  and 
suffered  himself  on  the  great  day  of  unleavened 
bread;  and  they  state  that  Matthew's  narrative 
is  in  accordance  with  their  view ;  while  it  follows 
that  their  view  is  at  variance  with  the  law,  and 
according  to  them  the  Gospels  seem  to  disagree." 
The  Gospels  are  here  spoken  of  as  a  definite  col- 
lection of  books,  well  known  and  generally  recog- 
nized ;  and,  of  course,  the  only  Gospel  that  seems 
to  disagree  with  Matthew's  about  the  time  of  our 
Lord's  supper  with  his  disciples  is  John's.  So 
fixed  is  this  notion  of  four  Gospels  from  this  time 


CANON  141 

onward,  that  we  are  able  to  make  it  a  sort  of 
chronological  landmark,  by  which  we  may  decide 
the  date  of  other  writings.  For  example,  when 
we  find  the  so-called  second  Epistle  of  Clement 
quoting  from  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Egyp- 
tians as  if  it  were  canonical,  we  can  safely  infer 
that  this  homily  is  earlier  than  the  time  of 
Irenaeus.^ 

One  thing  should  be  noted  before  we  pass 
from  Irenseus  to  the  other  testimonies  of  this 
period.  This  Father  was  in  youth  a  pupil  of 
Polycarp,  who  had  in  turn  been  taught  by  the  . 
Apostle  John.  Inasmuch  as  Polycarp  suffered  '^ 
in  155,  according  to  the  best  reckoning,  at  the 
age  of  eighty-six,  he  must  have  been  born  about 
A.  D.  69.  These  two  lives  spanned  nearly  the 
entire  history  of  Christianity  to  the  close  of  the 
second  century.  There  must  have  been  many 
such  cases. ^  Yet  we  are  asked  to  accept  as  a 
probable  hypothesis  this:    that  a  lot  of  forged 

1  We  have  in  Origen's  "  Commentary  on  Luke  "  an  interesting  con- 
firmation of  the  second  century  testimonies:  "As  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment the  charisma  of  distinguishing  between  spirits  prevailed,  so 
now  in  the  New  Covenant  many  have  desired  to  write  the  Gospels, 
but  the  '  good  bankers '  have  not  accepted  all,  but  have  chosen 
some  from  among  them.  .  .  The  Church  of  God  gives  preference  to 
four  only." 

2  For  an  impressive  calculation  of  the  possibilities  of  tradition  dur- 
ing the  second  century,  see  Gregory  on  the  Canon,  pp.   159-162. 


\ 


142  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

writings  were  successfully  foisted  on  the  churches 
of  the  second  century,  in  spite  of  the  presence 
in  them  of  many  intelligent  men  who  had  every 
opportunity  to  learn  the  truth  about  these  writ- 
ings and  every  motive  to  do  so.  This  is  to  demand 
that  we  believe  a  greater  miracle  than  any  re- 
corded in  the  Scriptures,  which  the  same  scholars 
who  propound  this  hypothesis  as  one  man  reject. 
This  collection  of  twenty  books  may  be  very 
properly  called  the  "  Provisional  "  Canon,  on  con- 
dition that  we  do  not  permit  that  name  to  connote 
the  idea  that  the  Church  was,  as  yet,  consciously 
engaged  in  the  process  of  forming  a  Canon.  That 
idea  did  not  clearly  emerge  into  the  consciousness 
of  Christendom  until  long  after  the  time  of  Ire- 
nseus.  Nor  must  we  permit  this  name  to  connote 
"the  equally  erroneous  idea  that  no  other  books 
were  at  this  time  received  as  Scripture.  At  the 
risk  of  wearisome  repetition,  it  must  be  said  again 
that  there  were  a  considerable  number  of  such 
books  received  by  some  and  rejected  by  others, 
some  of  which  were  afterward  admitted  into  the 
Canon,  while  others  were  ultimately  rejected. 
The  story  of  that  sifting  process  will  be  told  in 
subsequent  chapters.  For  our  present  purposes 
we  call  by  the  title  of  the  Provisional  Canon  only 


THE       PROVISIONAL        CANON  1 43 

those  books  about  which  there  was  never  any 
serious  question  among  Christians — qtiod  semper, 
quod  ubiqiie,  quod  ah  omnibus. 

And  yet,  even  here  a  sHght  quahfication  should 
be  made.  The  Provisional  Canon  was  probably 
not  precisely  alike  in  both  East  and  West.  There 
were  two  forms:  in  the  East  the  twenty  books 
included  First  Peter  and  excluded  Revelation; 
in  the  West  just  the  reverse  was  the  case — First 
Peter  was  not  generally  accepted  while  Revela- 
tion was.  On  this  point  Tertullian  and  the  Mura- 
torian  Fragment  agree,  as  we  shall  see  when  we 
examine  their  testimony  in  detail.  With  this 
slight  variation  recognized,  we  shall  find  compe- 
tent testimony  to  this  Canon  from  all  parts  of  the 
Roman  empire — from  Gaul,  from  Italy,  from 
Africa,  from  Alexandria,  and  the  East. 

We  have  already  had  the  testimony  from  Gaul 
— that  of  Irenaeus — let  us  next  consider  that  from 
the  further  extremity  of  the  empire,  Alexandria, 
since  it  is  of  the  same  date.  Clement  ^  ( 165-220) 
in  his  exposition  of  the  principle  that  Scripture  is 
the  criterion  by  which  truth  and  heresy  are  dis- 
tinguishable, says :  "  For  we  have,  as  the  source 
of  teaching,  the  Lord,  both  by  the  prophets,  the 

*  Strom.,  vii.  i6. 


144  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Gospel,  and  the  blessed  apostles,  '  in  divers  man- 
ners and  at  sundry  times '  leading  from  the  be- 
ginning of  knowledge  to  the  end."  Clement 
quotes  so  profusely  from  our  four  Gospels  that  it 
would  be  almost  possible  to  reconstruct  entire 
chapters  from  his  writings.  The  same  is  true  of 
the  Pauline  Epistles.  That  he  recognized  four 
Gospels  and  no  more  as  canonical,  though  he  may 
have  occasionally  quoted  from  others,  is  proved 
by  the  following  passage  from  his  "  Hypoty- 
poses/'  preserved  by  Eusebius,^  who  says: 

Again,  in  the  same  books,  Clement  has  set  down  a  tra- 
dition which  he  had  received  from  the  elders  before  him, 
in  regard  to  the  order  of  the  Gospels,  to  the  following 
effect.  He  says  that  the  Gospels  containing  the  geneal- 
ogies were  written  first,  and  that  the  Gospel  according 
to  Mark  was  composed  in  the  following  circumstances: 
"  Peter  having  preached  the  word  publicly  at  Rome, 
and  by  the  Spirit  proclaimed  the  gospel,  those  who 
were  present,  who  were  numerous,  entreated  Mark, 
inasmuch  as  he  had  attended  him  from  an  early  period, 
and  remembered  what  had  been  said,  to  write  down 
what  had  been  spoken.  On  his  composing  the  Gospel, 
he  handed  it  to  those  who  had  made  the  request  to 
him;  which  coming  to  Peter's  knowledge,  he  neither 
hindered  nor  encouraged.  But  John,  the  last  of  all, 
seeing  that  what  was  corporeal  was  set  forth  in  the 
Gospels,  on  the  entreaty  of  his  intimate  friends,  and 
inspired  by  the  Spirit,  composed  a  spiritual  Gospel." 

1  H.  E.,  vi.  14. 


THE    "'  PROVISIONAL  ''    CANON  I45 

That  Clement  received  also  First  Peter  is 
clearly  evident  from  more  than  a  score  of  quota- 
tions that  he  makes  from  it,  while  from  First 
John  he  quotes  a  dozen  times — in  every  case 
manifestly  treating  both  books  as  Scripture. 
There  can  be  hardly  a  doubt  that  he  also  recog- 
nized as  canonical  more  than  the  books  of  the 
Provisional  Canon — at  least  Hebrews,  James, 
Jude,  and  Revelation. 

Harnack,^  however,  will  not  admit  that  Clem- 
ent speaks  for  the  Alexandrine  Church.  This  in- 
sistence that  when  an  Eastern  writer  speaks,  he 
speaks  for  himself  alone,  agrees  badly  with  the 
assumption  that  whenever  a  Western  writer 
speaks  he  speaks  for  the  Roman  Church.  Such 
unfair  treatment  of  testimony  is  not  deliberate, 
of  course,  but  it  is  nevertheless  quite  characteris- 
tic of  the  mental  operations  of  a  certain  historical 
school,  and  vitiates  not  a  few  of  their  conclu- 
sions. There  is  no  good  reason  assignable  for 
refusing  to  regard  Clement  as  fairly  representa- 
tive of  the  Alexandrine  opinions  of  his  time,  the 
closing  decades  of  the  second  century. 

That  other  parts  of  the  East  substantially 
agreed  with  Alexandria  we  have  testimony,  not 

1  Dogma,  II.,  59,  60. 
K 


146  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

SO  complete  as  might  be  desired,  but  unmistakable 
in  its  character.  Theophilus  of  Antioch  composed 
a  treatise  in  three  books,  dedicated 
to  a  friend  named  Autolycus,  whom 
he  endeavored  to  convince  of  the  truth  of  Chris- 
tianity. He  is  speaking  of  the  origin  of  Christ: 
''  And  hence  the  holy  writings  teach  us,  and  all 
the  Spirit-bearing  men,  one  of  whom,  John,  says, 
*  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word 
was  with  God.'  "  This  is  the  first  instance  now 
extant  of  the  quotation  of  the  fourth  Gospel  ac- 
companied by  the  author's  name.  And,  of  course, 
if  the  fourth  Gospel  was  accepted  by  Theophilus,^ 
there  can  be  no  doubt  about  the  other  three,  es- 
pecially as  he  also  quotes  from  Matthew.  Else- 
where Theophilus  gives  evidence  of  knowing  and 
using  as  Scripture  eight  of  the  Pauline  Epistles, 
which  necessarily  implies  like  knowledge  of  the 
rest,  and  he  quotes  from  Acts  and  First  Peter. 
The  only  book  of  the  Provisional  Canon  that  can 
be  said  not  to  be  positively  attested  by  his  writ- 
ings is  First  John,  and  there  is  a  dubious  refer- 
ence to  I  John  2  :  20  in  his  saying,  "  Wherefore 
we  are  called  Christians  on  this  account,  because 
we  are  anointed  with  the  oil  of  God."  ^     Like 

^  iii.   13.  'i.   12. 


THE        PROVISIONAL        CANON  I47 

evidences  of  the  acceptance  of  the  same  books  is 
found  in  the  writings  of  Athenagoras,  an  Athe- 
nian philosopher,  belonging  to  about  the  same 
date. 

Tertullian,  in  time  the  last  of  the  witnesses  to 
the  Provisional  Canon,  is  by  far  the  most  precise 
and  convincing  in  his  testimony.  His  treatise 
"  Against  Marcion  "  was  written  in  or  about  the 
year  207.  After  insisting  on  the  authority  of 
Luke's  Gospel,  as  shown  by  the  fact  of  its  ac- 
ceptance in  the  apostolic  churches  from  its  publi- 
cation, he  goes  on  to  say :  ^  "  The  same  authority 
of  the  apostolic  churches  will  afford  evidence  to 
the  other  Gospels  also,  which  we  possess  equally 
through  their  means — I  mean  the  Gospels  of 
John  and  Matthew — whilst  that  which  Mark 
published  may  be  affirmed  to  be  Peter's,  whose 
interpreter  Mark  was.  For  even  Luke's  form  of 
the  Gospel  men  usually  ascribe  to  Paul.  And  it 
may  well  seem  that  the  works  that  disciples  pub- 
lish belong  to  their  masters."  This  is  decisive  as 
to  the  four  Gospels,  which  he  calls  as  a  collec- 
tion ^  the  "  evangelical  Instrument."  His  accept- 
ance of  the  Acts  is  made  equally  decisive  by  an 
elaborate  comparison  of  that  book  with  Paul's 

*  iv.  2.  *  iv.  5. 


148  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Epistle  to  the  Galatians/  In  the  same  treatise  he 
recognizes  distinctly  thirteen  Epistles  of  Paul, 
and  makes  it  a  reproach  to  Marcion  that  the 
latter  has  not  only  mutilated  their  text  but  their 
number,  by  rejecting  the  letters  to 
Timothy  and  Titus.^  The  First 
Epistle  of  John  (4  :  1-3)  he  quotes  emphatically 
and  by  name,  with  a  long  discussion  of  the  Anti- 
christ. Indeed,  First  Peter  is  the  only  book  that 
Tertullian  ^  does  not  give  an  emphatic  attestation 
by  name.  This  he  clearly  quotes  but  once,  and 
in  a  writing  of  doubtful  genuineness. 

Tertullian  also  marks  the  giving  of  a  definite 
name  to  the  Canon,  which  it  has  ever  since  borne. 
The  early  Fathers  give  no  specific  name  to  the 
collection  of  apostolic  books  that  they  recognized 
as  Scripture.  Theophilus  of  Antioch  calls  them 
"  the  holy  Scriptures,"  the  "  divine  word." 
Clement  of  Alexandria  alludes  to  them  as  "  the 
Lord's  Scriptures,"  "  the  divine  Scriptures,"  the 
"  holy  books."  Even  so  late  as  the  time  of  Origen 
no  name  was  established  in  the  East,  and  his 
favorite  formula  is  ''  the  sacred  books."  The 
first  use  of  the  name  that  was  finally  adopted  by 
the  whole  church  belongs  to  the  closing  years  of 

\        *  V.  2,  3.  *v.  21.  ^  Scorpiace,  12. 


THE   ''provisional''    CANON  1 49 

the  second  century  and  to  the  writings  of  Clem- 
ent: ^  ''  For  God  is  the  cause  of  all  good  things; 
but  of  some  primarily,  as  of  the  O.'.d  and  New 
Testaments  "  {rr^^  re  dcadrjxr^;:  r^c  Tzaldiaz  xai  ty^:: 
via-).  The  context  leaves  little  room  for  rea- 
sonable doubt  that  the  allusion  is  to  the  written 
Covenants,  the  sacred  books  received  as  authorita- 
tive. And  if  there  should  be  any  who  doubt  this, 
Clement's  reference  elsewhere  to  "  the  command- 
ments according  to  both  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments "  ^  removes  all  possibility  of  questioning  his 
meaning. 

The  definite  acceptance  of  this  term  in  the  West 
— or  rather,  its  Latin  equivalent — was  perhaps 
earlier  than  in  the  East.  Tertullian  is  an  unim- 
peachable witness  to  its  use  in  Africa,  at  least. 
He  protests  against  Marcion's  attempt  to  set  up 
two  gods,  "  one  for  each  Instrument,  or  Testa- 
ment, as  it  is  more  usual  to  call  it."  ^  Both  words 
were  in  use  in  Roman  law,  the  one  meaning  a 
written  contract  (sometimes  a  public  document), 
and  so  being  the  more  exact  rendering  of  the 
Greek  dcadijxr^,  the  other  meaning  a  will.  In  his 
treatise  "Against  Praxeas,"  *  Tertullian  says: 
"  If  I  fail  in  resolving  this  article  by  disputable 

^  Strom.,  i.  5.  *  Ibid.,  v.  i.  »  iv.  i.  *  c.  15. 


150  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

passages  of  the  Old  Testament,  I  will  take  out  of 
the  New  Testament  (de  Novo  Testament 0)  a 
confirmatioio  of  our  view."  ^  And  he  speaks  re- 
peatedly of  "  both  Testaments."  ^ 

We  have  reserved  to  the  last,  for  more  careful 
examination,  the  testimony  to  the  Provisional 
Canon  from  Italy — a  list  of  received  apostolic 
writings  contemporary  with  Irenaeus,  or  possibly 
a  little  earlier.  Ludovico  Muratori,  a  distin- 
guished Italian  scholar,  discovered  in  the  Am- 
brosian  Library  at  Milan  a  manuscript  of  the 
seventh  or  eighth  century,  the  history  of  which  can 
be  traced  back  to  the  great  monastery  at  Bobbio, 
founded  by  Columban.  He  found  among  its  con- 
tents some  excerpts  from  the  Fathers,  including 
a  list  of  the  New  Testament  books,  and  published 
this  list  in  his  great  work  on  Italian  Antiquities, 
in  1740.  It  has  been  known  since  that  time  as 
the  Muratorian  Fragment  or  the  Muratorian 
Canon.  In  its  present  form  it  is  undoubtedly  of 
Italian  origin,  and  therefore  becomes  a  compe- 
tent witness  for  our  purpose. 

Besides  being  a  fragment,  mutilated  at  both 

*  c.  20;  De  Pud.,  I. 

2  Novum  Testamenttim  is  also  used  by  Tertullian  in  the  sense  of 
the  New  Covenant,  i.  e.,  the  Christian  dispensation  {Adv.  Prax.,  31; 
Adv.  Mar.,  iv.  22).  The  context  always  makes  it  possible  to  decide 
when  he  refers  to  the  written  Covenant. 


THE   "provisional        CANON  I5I 

ends,  this  document  is  written  in  barbarous  Latin, 
and  the  copyist  has  disfigured  the  manuscript  with 
many  careless  and  gratuitous  blunders.  This 
makes  the  text  as  it  stands  unintelligible  in  many 
places  and  nonsensical  in  others,  so  that  much  con- 
jectural emendation  is  necessitated  in  order  to  get 
from  it  connected  and  sensible  sentences.  Many 
scholars  have  tried  their  hands  at  this  task  in 
turn,  until  something  like  a  received  text  has  been 
evolved.  This  document  is  of  so  great  impor- 
tance, and  is  so  characteristic  of  the  age  from 
which  it  has  descended  to  us,  that  it  has  been 
given  in  full,  as  the  first  document  of  the  Ap- 
pendix, in  the  best  English  dress  practicable. 

Before  examining  its  testimony  to  the  Provi- 
sional Canon,  there  is  at  least  one  question  to  be 
considered.  Can  we  fix  approximately  its  date? 
There  is  a  reference  to  the  Roman  episcopate  of 
Pius  as  having  been  "  very  recently,  in  our  times," 
that  seems  to  make  this  possible.  Unfortunately, 
however,  there  is  very  great  uncertainty  as  to  this 
same  Pius.  Some  would  put  the  close  of  his  epis- 
copate as  early  as  142,  while  others  would  place  it 
as  late  as  157.  The  latter  date  is  now  regarded 
as  the  more  probable,  and  it  thus  becomes  evident 
that  the  date  of  the  list  cannot  well  be  earlier  than 


152  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

160,  while  it  may  be  as  late  as  200.    The  year  180 
may  be  taken  as  a  reasonable  mean. 

The  list  of  books  given  is  peculiar  in  several 
particulars.  The  four  Gospels  are  first  recog- 
nized ;  this  cannot  be  doubted  after  one  reads  the 
incomplete  opening  sentence,  and  the  later  allu- 
sion to  John's  as  the  fourth  Gospel.  Then  follow 
the  Acts,  and  thirteen  Epistles  of  Paul,  in  this 
curious  order :  Corinthians,  Ephesians,  Galatians, 
Thessalonians,  Romans,  Philemon,  Titus,  First 
and  Second  Timothy ;  after  which  come  Jude,"  two 
of  John,"  and  the  Apocalypses  of  John  and  Peter, 
at  least  the  latter  being  recognized  as  of  doubtful 
canonicity.  The  Book  of  Wisdom  is  mentioned 
before  the  Apocalypses,  showing  the  uncertainty 
at  this  date  concerning  the  Old  Testament  Canon 
to  be  quite  as  great  as  that  regarding  the  New. 
Hebrews,  James,  and  Third  John  are  not  men- 
tioned, and  are  therefore  excluded;  but  this  is 
what  we  might  expect.  What  is  a  little  surprising 
is  the  inclusion  of  Jude  and  the  omission  of  any 
mention  of  First  Peter.  This  omission  is  quite 
inexplicable,  except  on  the  theory  of  an  accidental 
oversight  on  the  part  of  the  scribe,  and  several 
ingenious  emendations  have  been  proposed;  but 
none  of  these  explanations  is  convincing. 


THE   "provisional'"    CANON  1 53 

What  was  the  object  of  this  Hst?  The  same 
MS.  from  which  it  is  taken  gives,  immediately 
after  it,  a  fragment  from  a  treatise  of  Ambrose, 
and  an  equally  fragmentary  translation  from  a 
work  of  Chrysostom  is  contained  in  it.  From  in- 
ternal evidence  we  might  say  with  some  confi- 
dence that  we  have  here  the  commonplace  book 
of  some  monk,  who  copied  out  from  the  writings 
of  the  Fathers  brief  extracts  that  had  struck  his 
fancy.  This  list  can  hardly  be  an  official  docu- 
ment, even  though  Holtzmann  does  say  so  con- 
fidently that  it  is  "  a  list  of  canonical  books  of  the 
Roman  Church."  ^  Rather,  the  unknown  writer 
seems  attempting  to  state  the  traditions  of  the 
churches  regarding  the  origin  of  the  canonical 
writings,  and  to  give  a  list  of  those  accepted  in 
the  churches  with  which  he  is  acquainted.  Ac- 
cordingly, Muratori  attributed  it  to  Gains,  on  the 
ground  of  a  statement  by  Eusebius  that  Gains 
had  left  a  list  of  the  genuine  apostolic  writings. 
Bunsen  thought  it  an  ill-translated  excerpt  from  a 
work  of  Hegesippus. 

The  internal  evidence  of  the  Fragment  itself 
makes  sufficiently  plain  the  purpose  of  the  un- 

*  Ein  Kanonverzeichniss  der  romischen  Kirche.     "  Introduction," 

p.    125. 


154  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

known  writer.  As  in  the  writings  of  Irenseus,  the 
test  of  canonicity  is  public  reading  in  the  churches 
— what  writings  are  so  read,  what  writings  are 
fitted  for  such  reading.  The  matter  is  thus  looked 
at  primarily  from  a  liturgical  point  of  view,  not 
the  historical  or  dogmatic,  though  historical  and 
dogmatic  considerations  are  appealed  to  as  rea- 
sons for  the  decision  pro  or  con  in  the  case  of 
certain  books.  The  dogmatic  bias  is  apparent  in 
the  saying  that  "  it  is  not  fitting  to  mix  gall  and 
honey."  The  historical  element  appears  in  the 
care  taken  to  establish  the  apostolicity  of  the 
accepted  writings,  and  to  make  it  clear  that  John, 
in  particular,  was  an  eye-witness. 

When  we  examine  the  Fragment  sentence  by 
sentence,  we  find  a  score  of  phrases  that  seem  to  be 
Greek  idioms,  rather  than  Latin.  This  has  led 
most  critics  to  infer  that  we  have  here  a  transla- 
tion from  a  Greek  original.^  If  that  is  admitted  to 

*  Westcott,  usually  cautious,  thinks  "  there  can  be  little  doubt  that 
it  is  a  version  from  the  Greek,"  and  later  more  positively  declares 
that  the  "  recurrence  of  Greek  idioms  appears  conclusive  to  the 
fact  that  it  is  a  translation"  (pp.  214,  217).  On  the  other  hand, 
Reuss  says:  "The  language,  the  rejection  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  or  at  least  the  silence  observed  regarding  it,  everything 
down  to  the  mention  of  the  city  of  Rome  and  its  bishop,  betrays 
a  Latin  and  probably  African  pen"  (p.  102).  Reuss  thinks  fel 
cum  melle,  a  pun,  which  "  seems  of  itself  to  prove  that  we  possess 
the  document  in  the  original  and  not  as  a  translation  from  the 
Greek"  (p.  100,  note). 


CANON  155 

be  the  case,  an  Eastern  origin  of  the  list  is  natur- 
ally suggested,  and  certainly  the  burden  of  proof 
is  thrown  upon  those  who  maintain  that  the  docu- 
ment originated  in  the  West.  The  opinion  of 
most  scholars  inclines,  in  spite  of  this  natural  pre- 
sumption, toward  a  Western  origin,  but  it  must 
be  admitted  that  much  of  their  reasoning  is  in- 
conclusive and  some  of  it  extraordinary. 

Some  very  incautious  assertions  have  been 
made  in  order  to  weaken  the  presumption  of  an 
Eastern  origin.  Westcott,  usually  conservative 
almost  to  a  fault,  says  that  "  Greek  continued  to 
be  even  at  a  later  period,  the  ordinary  language  of 
the  Roman  church";'  and  Doctor  Gregory^ 
goes  even  further  in  asserting  that  *'  Greek  con- 
tinued to  be  the  Christian  literary  language  at 
Rome  until  well  into  the  third  century."  West- 
cott and  Gregory  are  scholars  unsurpassed  in 
learning,  but  how  can  any  man  of  this  age,  how- 
ever learned,  know  what  was  the  language  of  the 
Roman  church  of  the  second  century,  when 
there  is  not  a  line  surviving  in  any  language  that 
can  be  positively  traced  to  that  church  in  the 
second  century  ? 

The  poverty  stricken  condition  of  the  Roman 

»  "  Canon,"  p.  214.  '  "  Canon,"  p.  120. 


156  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

church  of  the  first  three  centuries  is  not  reaHzed 
by  those  who  have  not  looked  into  the  matter. 
During  all  this  time  it  did  not  produce  a  single 
great  man,  and  no  writings  of  any  account  have 
come  down  to  us.  The  letter  of  Clement  of 
Rome  to  the  church  of  Corinth  belongs  to  the 
first  century,  not  the  second.  But,  not  to  take 
advantage  of  a  mere  technicality,  what  may  be  in- 
ferred from  the  fact  that  Clement's  letter  is  writ- 
ten in  Greek?  Why,  merely  this:  that  Clement 
was  able  to  write  in  Greek,  or  that  he  had  an 
amanuensis  who  could,  and,  as  he  was  writing 
to  a  Greek-speaking  church,  that  would  not  be 
able  to  understand  a  letter  in  Latin,  he  used 
Greek.  Nothing  more  than  this  may  be  inferred. 
The  letter  has  no  bearing  on  the  question  of  what 
language  was  ordinarily  spoken  or  written  by  the 
members  of  the  Roman  church  in  Clement's  time. 
Consider  the  matter  from  another  point  of 
view.  The  fact  that  Clement  wrote  in  Greek  can 
no  more  be  cited  as  proof  that  Greek  was  the 
language  of  the  Roman  church,  than  the  fact  that 
Irenaeus  also  wrote  in  Greek  can  be  said  to  prove 
that  the  language  of  the  church  of  Lyons  was 
Greek.  A  Greek-speaking  church  in  the  Gaul  of 
the  second  century!     The  use  of  Greek  by  Ire- 


THE   ''provisional'"    CANON  157 

nseus  is  sufficiently  accounted  for  by  the  well- 
known  fact  that  he  was  a  native  of  Smyrna  and 
Greek  was  his  mother  tongue.  If  we  knew  more 
about  Clement  we  might  find  as  satisfactory  an 
explanation  of  his  knowledge  of  Greek. 

Hegesippus  (d.  i8o),  who  is  often  carelessly 
called  a  Roman  writer,  gives  no  help  to  the  West- 
cott-Gregory  hypothesis.  He  certainly  visited 
Rome,  but  he  was  as  certainly  a  native  of  the 
East,  and  there  is  no  proof  that  he  had  any  con- 
nection with  the  Roman  church.  Jerome  '  plainly 
understood,  from  the  information  accessible  to 
him,  that  Hegesippus  was  only  a  sojourner  in 
Rome.  Nothing  therefore  can  be  argued  from 
his  writing  in  Greek  as  to  the  language  of  the 
Roman  church. 

No  inference  can  be  drawn  from  the  writings 
of  Gains  that  will  strengthen  the  hypothesis.  It 
is  not  certain  that  he  was  a  presbyter  or  bishop 
or  even  a  member  of  the  church  at  Rome,  though 
these  things  are  often  asserted.  The  earliest  state- 
ment to  that  effect  is  not  trustworthy,  as  it  be- 
longs to  the  ninth  century,  being  found  in  a  work 
of  Photius  of  Constantinople  (d.  891).  The  one 
fact  that  we  know  about  him,  on  the  authority  of 

*  De  vir.  III.,  c.  xxii. 


158  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Eusebius/  is  that  he  wrote  a  "  Dialogue  with 
Proclus,"  an  account  of  his  disputation  with  a 
heretic  of  that  name  in  Rome,  in  the  episcopate  of 
Zephyrinus  (201-219).  The  fragments  of  that 
writing  that  have  been  preserved  are  in  Greek, 
but  it  is  not  certain  that  this  was  the  original 
language.  If  it  were,  in  spite  of  his  apparently 
Roman  name,  Gains  may  have  been  of  Eastern 
origin — a  guess  that  finds  confirmation  in  one 
or  two  references  to  him  in  patristic  literature. 
Nobody  can  say — or,  rather,  since  some  scholars 
have  shown  themselves  capable  of  saying  any- 
thing, nobody  should  say — even  if  it  were  estab- 
lished that  Gaius  was  a  member  of  the  Roman 
church  and  wrote  in  Greek,  that  Greek  is  thereby 
proved  to  have  been  the  language  of  the  church. 
The  fallacy  of  such  an  inference  is  one  of  which 
any  tyro  in  logic  should  be  ashamed. 

Nor  does  the  fact  that  the  Shepherd  was  writ- 
ten in  Greek,  and  is  said  to  have  been  written 
by  the  brother  of  a  Roman  bishop,  prove  that 
Greek  was  the  language  of  the  Roman  church. 
It  does  not  even  tend  to  prove  such  a  hypothesis, 
if  we  consider  the  character  of  the  Shepherd. 
The  book  was  composed,  as  its  character  makes 

^  H.  E.,  ii.  25.  6. 


CANON  159 

clear,  for  the  East,  where  Montanism  was  ra- 
ging, not  for  the  West  where  it  was  not  at  all 
dangerous.  The  author  understood  Greek  and 
wrote  in  that  language,  as  best  adapted  to  pro- 
cure the  circulation  of  his  book  where  it  was 
needed.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  was  principally- 
circulated  in  the  East,  because  only  there  could 
it  be  widely  read.  Any  one  can  easily  satisfy 
himself  how  anti-Montanistic  the  Shepherd  is, 
and  appreciate  the  force  of  what  has  been  said. 

A  parallel  case  will  make  the  matter  plainer. 
The  late  Dr.  George  B.  Taylor  wrote  a  book  on 
Italy  while  he  was  a  pastor  of  a  Baptist  church 
in  Rome,  and  wrote  it  in  English  for  readers 
in  America,  but  the  language  of  his  church  is 
Italian,  though  there  are  a  number  of  people  in 
it  who  speak  good  English.  Does  not  this  show 
how  rash  is  the  inference  that  some  would  draw 
from  the  language  of  the  Shepherd?  Though  it 
was  written  in  Rome,  and  by  one  who  may  have 
been  a  member  of  the  Roman  church,  no  con- 
nection of  the  writing  with  the  church  can  be 
shown,  and  in  the  absence  of  proof  no  one  is 
entitled  to  call  this  a  document  of  the  Roman 
church,  or  cite  it  as  evidence  that  Greek  was  the 
language  of  that  church  in  the  second  century. 


l60  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

It  ought  not  even  to  be  asserted  that  Greek 
was  the  language  of  the  Roman  church  in  the 
apostoHc  age.  Paul  wrote  his  letter  to  the  Romans 
in  Greek  it  is  true,  but  this  may  have  been  be- 
cause he  was  unable  to  write  in  Latin;  and  he 
knew  that  there  were  in  the  church  enough  Hel- 
lenistic Jews  to  interpret  the  letter  to  Latin- 
speaking  brethren/  It  is  more  than  doubtful 
if  this  were  true  in  the  days  of  Clement.  The 
closing  chapters  of  the  Acts  indicate  that  from 
the  coming  of  Paul  to  Rome  the  church  received 
its  chief  additions  from  the  Gentiles.  The  men- 
tion of  converts  even  among  Caesar's  household 
(Phil.  4  :  22)  in  one  of  the  Epistles  of  the  cap- 
tivity, shows  that  Romans,  even  those  of  high 
station,  were  added  to  the  church.  That  Greek 
continued  after  the  apostolic  age  to  be  the  lan- 
guage of  the  church,  if  it  had  ever  been  such, 
is  a  proposition  so  contrary  to  all  that  we  might 
fairly  expect  as  to  be  receivable  only  upon  positive 
proof. 

Not  only  is  there  no  proof  available,  but  such 

^  Rome,  as  a  cosmopolitan  city,  would  have  many  Greeks  among 
its  citizens  in  the  second  century,  and  it  is  possible  that  a  few  such 
might  be  found  in  the  Roman  church.  But  how  far  this  possibility 
is  from  warranting  a  conclusion  that  Greek  was  the  oflBcial  or  literary 
language  of  the  church  needs  no  argument  to  convince  any  sober- 
minded  reader. 


THE   "'provisional'"    CANON  l6l 

evidence  as  is  extant  warrants  rather  the  behef 
that  Greek  was  never  the  language,  Hterary  or 
other,  of  Rome,  Christian  or  heathen,  in  any  other 
sense  than  that  in  which  French  is  the  language 
of  Rome  to-day.  Practically  every  educated 
Roman,  and  every  one  engaged  in  any  sort  of 
business,  speaks  French.  French  books  are  pub- 
lished in  Rome.  For  *'  French "  substitute 
''  Greek,"  and  Rome  in  the  second  century  is 
described.  The  utmost  that  the  known  facts  and 
plausible  hypotheses  will  allow  to  be  said,  there- 
fore, is  this :  the  circumstance  that  a  document 
of  the  second  century  is  written  in  Greek  does 
not  exclude  the  possibility  that  it  might  have 
been  composed  in  Rome  or  somewhere  in  Italy. 
After  the  fourth  century  a  Western  origin  of  a 
Greek  document  would  be  an  impossibility,  unless 
it  could  be  shown  by  good  external  evidence  that 
it  was  composed  by  a  Greek  temporarily  dwelling 
in  Italy. 

When  we  look  for  positive  evidence  in  favor 
of  a  Western  origin  of  the  Fragment,  we  find 
nothing  but  this  sentence  in  the  document  itself : 
"  The  Shepherd  moreover  Hermas  very  recently 
wrote  in  the  city  of  Rome,  in  our  own  times, 
while  his  brother  Pius  was  occupying  the  chair 

L 


1 62  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

of  the  Roman  church."  That  is  what  some  great 
scholars  call  proof!  It  does  not  require  scholar- 
ship to  test  such  reasoning.  Let  any  reader  of 
average  common  sense  weigh  the  matter  for 
himself,  as  he  is  perfectly  competent  to  do.  Let 
us  take  a  parallel  case  from  our  own  day.  Sup- 
pose the  reader  should  see  in  a  book  or  news- 
paper this  sentence :  *'  The  '  Letters  of  a  Mer- 
chant to  His  Son  '  were  written  in  Boston  by 
George  Horace  Lorimer,  while  his  father  was 
pastor  of  Tremont  Temple."  (As  a  matter  of 
fact,  they  were  written  in  Louisville,  but  the 
above  sentence  makes  the  parallel  complete,  and 
accuracy  of  fact  is  not  material.)  Would  any- 
body reading  that  sentence  dream  of  inferring 
that  the  newspaper  or  book  in  which  it  occurred 
was  itself  written  or  published  in  Boston?  The 
sentence  would  suggest  only  that  it  was  written 
by  somebody  who  was  familiar  with  the  facts, 
and  that  might  be  anybody  anywhere  in  the 
United  States.  So  this  remark  in  the  Fragment 
about  the  composition  of  the  Shepherd  might  be 
taken  to  imply  that  its  author  lived  somewhere  in 
Italy,  were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  the  prominence 
of  the  church  of  Rome  and  the  intercourse  be- 
tween the  Christian  churches  of  the  second  cen- 


1 63 

tury,  would  very  likely  make  such  facts  as  these 
known  as  well  in  the  East  as  in  Italy.  We  must 
beware  of  reading  later  history  into  the  second 
century,  and  assuming  as  then  existing  that  mu- 
tual ignorance  of  each  other  which  did  prevail  in 
East  and  West  after  the  fourth  century. 

To  establish  the  Roman  origin  of  the  Fragment 
from  this  remark  on  the  authorship  of  the  Shep- 
herd, it  must  be  assumed  as  a  sound  principle  of 
literary  criticism  that  any  book  was  written  in 
any  place  to  which  the  author  chose  to  refer! 
To  call  such  reasoning  puerile  would  be  to  bestow 
on  it  undeserved  honor,  for  children  are  usually 
acute  reasoners  from  such  knowledge  as  they 
have.  Much  of  the  "  brilliancy  "  of  not  a  few 
"  brilliant  historical  scholars  "  consists  in  their 
capacity  to  reason  in  this  manner  on  one  page, 
and  then,  a  few  pages  further  on,  to  assert  as  an 
undoubted  fact  what  they  have  thus  deduced.^ 

But  even  if  it  be  conceded  that  this  list  was 
written  in  Rome — and  this  is  conceding  much — 
what  is  there  to  connect  it  with  the  Roman 
church?    That  is  another  great  leap,  in  utter  de- 

^  Sanday  puts  the  case  very  mildly  when  he  says  of  Harnack:  "  He 
sorely  needs  to  learn  to  weigh  degrees  of  probability,  and  not  to 
build  upon  pure  conjecture  as  if  it  were  certain  "  ("  Inspiration," 
p.  25,  note). 


164  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

fiance  of  all  rules  of  logic.  Yet  a  recent  writer 
on  the  Canon  has  gone  so  far  as  not  merely  to 
ascribe  this  document  to  the  Roman  church,  but 
to  say  that  the  matter  is  "  beyond  a  doubt "  ^ — 
that  ''  we  feel  in  it  the  pulse-beat  of  the  authority 
of  Rome."  Let  every  reader  read  again  the  entire 
document  and  see  if  he  can  feel  any  such  throb! 
Let  him  say  for  himself  what  evidence  he  finds  in 
it  of  connection  with  the  Roman  church. 

In  favor  of  a  Western  origin  it  has  also  been 
pleaded  that  an  Eastern  writer  would  not  be 
likely  either  to  know  that  Pius  was  bishop  of 
Rome,  or  to  date  events  from  his  episcopate. 
Both  of  these  assumptions  are  without  support, 
one  of  them  is  in  the  very  teeth  of  fact.  As  we 
have  seen,  the  presumption  is  rather  that  facts 
about  the  Roman  church  would  be  known  in  the 
East  during  the  second  century.  Why  should 
not  the  name  be  generally  known  of  one  who  was 
for  fifteen  years  bishop  of  so  important  a  church 
as  that  of  the  capital  of  the  empire?  And  es- 
pecially as  his  brother  had  written  a  book  that 
was  of  so  extraordinary  popularity  in  the  East 
that  many  received  it  for  Scripture?  So  far 
from    there    being    any    improbability    of    such 

*  Ferris,  pp.  222,  227. 


THE   ''provisional''    CANON  165 

knowledge  in  the  East,  we  see  there  is  a  strong 
probabiHty  in  its  favor. 

And  then,  the  mention  of  the  name  of  Pius  in 
the  Fragment  is  not  "  dating  "  the  document,  in 
the  sense  in  which  documents  were  dated  in  later 
centuries  by  Roman  episcopates.  The  mention 
of  Pius  has  quite  another  object.  "  The  Shep- 
herd moreover  Hermas  very  recently  wrote  in 
the  city  of  Rome,  in  our  own  times  [that  dates 
the  document],  while  his  brother  Pius  was  oc- 
cupying the  chair  of  the  Roman  church,  and  so 
it  is  fitting  that  it  should  be  read,  indeed,  but  not 
publicly  in  church."  "  And  so,"  because  the  book 
was  written  by  the  brother  of  Bishop  Pius,  "  it 
is  fitting  that  it  should  be  read  "  privately,  as  an 
edifying  book,  ''  but  not  publicly  in  the  church  " 
as  Scripture.  The  words  added  do  not  change, 
they  merely  bring  out  more  clearly  the  meaning 
of  the  text.  To  call  this  dating  the  writing  from 
the  episcopate  of  Pius  is  again  to  read  later 
history  into  documents  of  the  second  century — an 
ever-present  temptation  against  which  we  need  to 
be  vigilantly  on  guard. 

This  Fragment  is  the  corner-stone  of  those  who 
maintain  that  our  Canon  is  of  Roman  origin,  and 
that  a  Canon  made  in  Alexandria  would  have 


l66  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

been  something  very  different.  This  is  why  it 
has  been  subjected  to  this  critical  examination  at 
greater  length  than  its  real  importance  deserves. 
If  the  corner-stone  thus  crumbles  into  dust  at  a 
touch,  what  can  be  hoped  of  the  superstructure? 
Who  can  speak  for  Alexandria  if  not  Origen  and 
Athanasius? — the  one  the  greatest  scholar,  the 
other  the  greatest  theologian  and  bishop  that 
city  and  church  ever  produced.  Origen  seems 
to  have  accepted  all  the  books  of  our  Canon,  and 
no  others,  though  we  have  no  formal  list  from 
him.  He  says  explicitly  that  there  were  doubts 
in  his  day  about  Second  Peter  and  Second  and 
Third  John,  and  he  does  not  believe  that  Paul 
wrote  Hebrews,  but  he  expresses  no  doubts  as  to 
the  canonicity  of  any  of  them.  He  believes  for 
himself  that  the  Shepherd  is  inspired,  but  does 
not  claim  that  it  is  canonical.  As  for  Athanasius, 
the  first  formal  list  in  our  possession,  that  exactly 
corresponds  to  our  canonical  books,  is  his  list 
of  the  books,  canonical  in  his  day,  in  his  Festal 
Letter  of  367. 

Now,  if  this  list  of  the  Fragment,  by  an  un- 
known author,  whose  place  of  writing  is  only 
guessed  to  have  been  Rome,  is  to  be  regarded  as 
an  attempt  by  the  Roman  church  to  close  the 


CANON  167 

Canon,  a  fortiori  the  list  of  Athanasius  must  be 
the  attempt  of  Alexandria  to  close  the  Canon. 
And  what  is  more,  the  Roman  attempt  failed, 
while  that  of  Athanasius  was  successful.  Where- 
fore, it  is  proved  ''beyond  a  doubt"  that  our 
present  Canon  is  not  Roman  but  Alexandrine. 
The  logic  is  perfect,  the  conclusion  is  irresistible 
^ — and  utterly  absurd! 


VI 

THE  "  DISPUTED  "  BOOKS 


VI 


PROGRESS  in  the  formation  of  the  Canon 
during  the  third  century  was  surprisingly- 
slow.  At  first  examination,  the  Fathers  of  that 
period  seem  to  disclose  little  more  than  a  gain  of 
clearness  and  precision  of  statement  over  those 
of  the  last  two  decades  of  the  second  century. 
Yet  perhaps  we  ought  not  to  be  surprised  at  the 
little  progress  made,  for  an  explanation  lies  close 
at  hand.  Heresy,  which  we  have  seen  to  be  a 
stimulus  in  the  formation  of  the  Canon,  hastened 
the  process  only  up  to  a  certain  point:  it  caused 
a  more  speedy  apprehension  and  statement  of  the 
conclusions  in  which  the  Catholic  Church  found 
that  a  general  agreement  already  existed.  Be- 
yond that,  heresy  was  undoubtedly  a  retarding 
influence,  making  the  church  more  conservative, 
and  causing  every  book  that  was  not  already  gen- 
erally received  with  practical  unanimity  to  be 
closely  scrutinized  before  it  was  finally  accepted. 
We  find  a  steadily  growing  tendency  among 
the  Fathers  to  assert  the  inspiration  and  authority 
of  the  Scriptures,  as  the  general  principle  un- 

171 


iy2  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

derlying  the  acceptance  of  the  apostoHc  writings, 
as  authoritative.  TertulHan's  later  writings,  ex- 
tending down  to  the  year  220,  abound  in  such  as- 
sertions, most  notable  among  which  perhaps  is 
this :  ^  "  Scripture  is  of  God,  nature  is  of  God,  dis- 
cipline is  of  God — whatever  is  contrary  to  these  is 
not  of  God."  This  is  a  notable  utterance,  not  only 
for  what  it  says  of  Scripture,  but  for  the  association 
of  Scripture  with  two  other  co-ordinate  sources 
of  authority.  Origen  is  yet  more  explicit,  and  for 
the  first  time  roundly  asserts  the  equality  of  the 
New  Testament  with  the  Old :  "It  was  the  same 
Holy  Spirit  who  was  in  the  prophets  and  apos- 
tles." ^  "  The  Scriptures  were  written  by  the 
Spirit  of  God,"  he  tells  us,  and  he  apparently 
held  to  some  dictation  theory.  Often  he  speaks 
of  the  "  superhuman  element  of  the  thought,"  of 
"  the  divinity  of  the  Scripture,"  of  a  "  careful 
study  of  the  divine  word."  The  last  two  cen- 
turies have  hardly  produced  a  theory  of  inspira- 
tion more  "  high  "  than  Origen's. 

From  Cyprian  we  learn  the  additional  and  most 
interesting  fact  that  in  his  time  the  New  Testa- 
ment had  become  the  arbiter  of  all  disputes.    The 

^  De  Veland.  Virg.,  i6. 

'  De  Prin.,  ii.  7;    iv.  i.  7;    C.  Ceh,  vH.  60. 


THE    '"disputed        BOOKS  1 73 

question  of  the  treatment  of  the  lapsi,  those  who 
had  denied  Christ  in  the  stress  of  persecution, 
was  a  most  perplexing  one,  and  it  was  thus 
decided : 

According,  however,  to  what  has  before  been  decided 
...  a  large  number  of  bishops,  we  met  together;  and 
the  divine  Scriptures  being  brought  forward  on  both 
sides,  we  balanced  the  decision  with  wholesome  modera- 
tion. .  .  And  lest  perchance  the  bishops  in  Africa  should 
seem  unsatisfactory,  we  wrote  also  to  Rome,  to  Cor- 
nelius our  colleague,  concerning  this  thing,  who  himself 
also  holding  a  council  with  very  many  bishops,  con- 
curred in  the  same  opinion  as  we  held,  with  equal 
gravity  and  wholesome  moderation/ 

This  extract  from  Cyprian  has  a  double  in- 
terest, as  showing  not  only  the  position  to  which 
the  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament  had  at- 
tained as  an  authority,  but  also  the  precise  limits 
of  the  deference  that  was  paid  by  the  churches 
of  Africa  to  the  church  of  Rome  and  its  bishop, 
about  250.  "  What  obstinacy  is  that,"  says  the 
same  Father,  "or  what  presumption  to  prefer 
human  tradition  to  divine  ordinance,  and  not  to 
observe  that  God  is  indignant  and  angry  as  often 
as  human  tradition  relaxes  and  passes  by  the 
divine  precepts."  ^  A  reader  of  Cyprian's  Epis- 
tles cannot  help  concluding  that,  while  he  thus 

lEp.   H.   6.  2Ep.  Ixxiii.   3- 


174  ^UR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

shows  himself  correct  in  theory,  placing  the  writ- 
ten word  above  all  mere  tradition,  he  is  not 
always  consistent  in  practice — in  particular, 
where  he  justifies  *'  clinic "  baptism,  and  the 
baptism  of  new-born  babes. 

Hippolytus,  another  Father  of  this  century, 
speaks  what  may  be  left  as  the  final  word — 
for  nothing  could  be  more  explicit,  and  it  would 
be  merely  wearisome  to  accumulate  examples, 
though  there  is  no  lack  of  them.  He  says: 
"  There  is,  brethren,  one  God,  the  knowledge  of 
whom  we  gain  from  the  holy  Scriptures,  and 
from  no  other  source.  For  just  as  a  man,  if  he 
wishes  to  be  skilled  in  the  wisdom  of  this  world, 
will  find  himself  unable  to  get  at  it  in  any  other 
way  than  by  mastering  the  dogmas  of  philoso- 
phers, so  all  of  us  who  wish  to  practise  piety  will 
be  unable  to  learn  its  practice  from  any  other 
quarter  than  the  oracles  of  God."  ^  In  taking 
leave  of  this  matter,  it  may  not  be  without  in- 
terest to  observe  that  this  Father,  in  his  de- 
scription of  the  end  of  the  world,  says,  "  The 
public  service  of  God  shall  be  extinguished, 
psalmody  shall  cease,  the  reading  of  the  Scrip- 
tures shall  not  be  heard  " — an  unconscious  testi- 

^  Against  Noetus,  9. 


THE    "^^  DISPUTED ''    BOOKS  1 75 

mony  to  the  place  that  the  reading  of  the  apostoHc 
writings  had  come  to  fill  in  the  minds  of  Chris- 
tians. 

Our  next  positive  landmark  in  the  formation 
of  the  Canon  is  in  the  first  half  of  the  fourth  \ 

century,  in  the  list  of  New  Testament  books  given  / 

by  Eusebius,  not  as  a  critic,  but  as  a  historian. 
H^-names  as  the  accepted  writings  (ofioXofou- 
fiei^a):  the  four  Gospels,  Acts,  the  Epistles  of 
Paul,  First  John,  First  Peter,  Revelation.'  As  to 
the  last  named,  he  indicates  some  personal  mis- 
giving, but  nevertheless  testifies  to  its  general 
acceptance.  Among  the  disputed  writings  {dvu- 
hyofxeva ) ,  "  which  are  nevertheless  recognized 
by  many,"  he  gives  James,  Jude,  Second  Peter, 
Second  and  Third  John.  In  an  earlier  passage 
in  his  History,  Eusebius  had  said  that  "  Paul's 
fourteen  epistles  are  well  known  and  undis- 
puted," and  though  he  immediately  added,  "  it  is 
not  right  to  overlook  the  fact  that  some  have  re- 
jected the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,"  he  evidently 
regards  any  such  opposition  as  having  virtually 
ceased,  or  he  could  not  speak  of  fourteen  Epistles 
as  "undisputed."  2 

The  sum  of  progress  with  regard  to  the  Canon, 

*H.   E.,   iii.   25.  *Ibid.,   iii.    3.    5.  j 


176  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

made  in  a  century  ending  with  the  writing  of  the 
great  History  of  Eusebius,  may  be  said  to  be 
this:  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  has  been  defi- 
nitely added  to  the  twenty  books  of  the  Pro- 
visional Canon,  and  the  right  of  the  Apocalypse 
to  a  place  in  the  collection,  though  still  ques- 
tioned by  **  some,"  is  virtually  vindicated  and 
has  won  the  assent  of  the  great  majority.  The 
testimony  of  Eusebius  is  the  more  valuable  and 
convincing,  in  that  he  does  not  hesitate  to  set 
before  his  readers  all  the  evidence  known  to 
him  against  the  canonicity  of  these  two  writings. 
We  have  already  sufficiently  considered  the 
case  against  the  Apocalypse,  and  have  noted  the 
final  decision  in  its  favor,  delayed  some  decades 
after  the  time  of  Eusebius.  It  will  be  necessary, 
and  interesting  as  well,  to  trace  the  vicissitudes  of 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  which  did  not  reach  an 
unquestioned  place  in  the  Canon  without  much 
opposition  and  long  searching.  One  reason  for 
the  slow  progress  toward  acceptance  may  have 
been  that  the  letter  was  evidently  addressed,  not 
to  Hebrews  in  general,  but  to  a  single  society. 
Westcott  thinks  the  church  was  in  or  near  Jerusa- 
lem, but  against  this  is  the  fact  that  the  writing 
seems  to  have  been  first  known  in  the  West.    As 


THE        DISPUTED  ""    BOOKS  I77 

we  have  seen,  there  are  numerous  and  unmis- 
takable traces  of  this  Epistle  in  the  letter  of 
Clement  of  Rome,  several  quotations,  and  many 
allusions  that  constitute  a  moral  certainty  of  the 
inference  that  Hebrews  was  well  known  to 
Clement.  If  the  society  of  Hebrews  to  which 
the  letter  was  addressed  was  in  or  near  Rome, 
this  would  be  easy  to  understand;  but  if  so  far 
east  as  Jerusalem  it  is  inexplicable.  There  are, 
to  be  sure,  what  are  thought  to  be  traces  of  the 
use  of  this  Epistle  in  Polycarp  and  Justin,  but  the 
two  generations  that  separate  these  writers  from 
Clement  would  be  time  enough  to  allow  for  a 
knowledge  of  the  writing  to  extend  to  the  East. 
Though  these  early  writers  receive  the  Epistle 
as  apostolic  and  authoritative,  none  of  them  says 
anything  about  its  authorship. 

The  earliest  mention  of  Hebrews  in  connection 
with  its  authorship  is  by  Clement  of  Alexandria. 
Quoting  from  a  lost  work  of  that  Father,  the 
"  Hypotyposes,"  Eusebius  says :  "  And  he  says 
that  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  Paul's,  and  was 
written  in  the  Hebrew  language ;  but  that  Luke, 
having  carefully  translated  it,  gave  it  to  the 
Greeks,  and  hence  the  same  coloring  in  expression 
is  discernible  in  this  Epistle  and  the  Acts;    and 

M 


1^8  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

that  the  name,  Paul  an  Apostle,  was  very  properly 
not  prefixed,  for  he  says,  that  writing  to  the 
Hebrews,  who  were  prejudiced  against  him  and 
suspected,  he  with  great  wisdom  did  not  repel 
them  in  the  beginning  by  putting  down  his 
name."  ^  This  is  evidently  an  attempt  of  Clement 
to  account  for  two  things  that  constitute  almost 
insuperable  objections  to  receiving  this  as  an 
Epistle  of  Paul :  the  difference  in  the  style  from 
the  other  letters  of  Paul,  which  a  Greek  would 
feel  much  more  keenly  than  we  can,  and  secondly, 
the  absence  of  Paul's  name,  in  defiance  of  his 
well-established  custom.  We  need  not  stop  to 
point  out  the  failure  of  this  well-meant  and  even 
ingenious  attempt  to  make  the  virtual  Pauline 
authorship  of  the  Epistle  probable,  further  than 
to  say  that  it  is  strange  that  one  to  whom  Greek 
was  vernacular  should  not  have  seen  that  the 
style  of  Hebrews  is  no  more  like  Luke's  than  it 
is  like  Paul's.  The  real  point  is  that  the  Epistle 
was  now  beginning  to  be  ascribed  to  Paul,  as  a 
ground  for  placing  it  in  the  Canon. 

The  Greek  Fathers  generally  agreed  that  He- 
brews was  to  be  received  as  canonical,  but  they 
did  not  at  once  agree  with  Clement  as  to  the  Paul- 

»H.  E.,  vi.  14. 


THE        DISPUTED        BOOKS  1 79 

ine  authorship.  Again  we  have  to  rely  on  a  quo- 
tation by  Eusebius  '  from  the  lost ''  Homilies  "  of 
Origen  on  Hebrews : 

That  the  verbal  style  of  the  Epistle  ...  is  not  rude 
like  the  language  of  the  apostle,  who  acknowledged 
himself  "  rude  in  speech,"  that  is,  in  expression,  but  that 
its  diction  is  purer  Greek,  any  one  who  has  the  power 
to  discern  differences  of  phraseology  will  acknowledge. 
Moreover,  that  the  thoughts  of  the  Epistle  are  admira- 
ble, and  not  inferior  to  the  acknowledged  apostolic 
writings  any  one  who  carefully  examines  the  apostolic 
text  will  admit.  .  .  If  I  gave  my  opinion,  I  should  say 
that  the  thoughts  are  those  of  the  apostle,  but  the 
diction  and  phraseology  are  those  of  some  one  who 
remembered  the  apostolic  teachings,  and  wrote  down 
at  his  leisure  what  had  been  said  by  his  teacher. 
Therefore  if  any  church  holds  that  this  Epistle  is  by 
Paul,  let  it  be  commended  for  this.  For  not  without 
reason  have  the  ancients  handed  it  down  as  Paul's. 
But  who  wrote  the  Epistle,  in  truth,  God  knows.  The 
statement  of  some  who  have  gone  before  us  is  that 
Clement,  bishop  of  the  Romans,  wrote  the  Epistle,  and 
of  others  that  Luke,  the  author  of  the  Gospel  and  the 
Acts,  wrote  it. 

Clement  and  Origen  agree  in  accepting  the 
Epistle  as  apostolic,  probably  Pauline  in  sub- 
stance, and  neither  has  the  least  doubt  as  to  its 
canonicity.  Athanasius  accepted  it  as  one  of  the 
"  fourteen  Epistles  of  the  Apostle  Paul,"  and  it 
is  quoted  as  Paul's  by  such  Fathers  of  the  Greek 

^  H.  E.,  vi.  25.  11-14. 


l8o  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Church  as  Didymus,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  Cyril 
of  Jerusalem,  Basil,  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  Gregory 
Nazianzen,  Epiphanius,  Theodore  of  Mopsues- 
tia,  and  Chrysostom/ 

^ In  the  West,  however,  where  the  writing  seems 

u  to  have  been  known  earliest,  and  probably  not  as 
^•^  a  Pauline  Epistle  at  first,  there  was  grave  doubt 
as  to  its  canonicity.  Tertullian  was  inclined  to  ac- 
cept it,  as  apostolic,  though  not  Pauline :  "  For 
there  is  extant  withal  an  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
under  the  name  of  Barnabas — a  man  sufficiently 
accredited  by  God,  as  being  one  whom  Paul  has 
stationed  next  to  himself  [here  he  quotes  i  Cor. 
15  :  6].  .  .  And,  of  course,  the  Epistle  of  Bar- 
nabas is  more  generally  received  among  the 
churches  than  that  apocryphal  Shepherd  of 
adulterers."  ^  The  bitterness  in  the  last  sentence 
is  doubtless  due  to  the  anti-Montanistic  tone  of 
the  Shepherd.  It  might  be  doubtful  whether 
Tertullian  refers  here  to  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews or  the  document  known  to  us  as  the 
Epistle  of  Barnabas,  but  he  removes  all  possible 
doubt  by  going  on  to  quote  at  length  from  chap. 

1  Any  who  may  be  interested  in  verifying  these  statements  will 
find  abundant  references  for  that  purpose  in  Westcott's  "  Commen- 
tary on  Hebrews,"  p,  y2. 

^De  Pud.,  20. 


THE    ''disputed''    BOOKS  l8l 

6  of  our  canonical  Hebrews.  It  is  worth  while 
noting  as  we  pass  that  Tertullian  proposes  as  the 
test  of  canonicity,  the  reception  of  a  book  by  the 
churches,  the  test  that  we  have  found  to  be  de- 
cisive from  the  beginning. 

Cyprian  ignores  Hebrews,  and  in  his  extant 
writings  Irenseus  does  not  quote  from  it,  but  we 
have  the  statement  of  Eusebius  that  in  two  books 
of  his  that  are  lost  he  quoted  from  the  writing 
and  also  from  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon.  Gains, 
the  Roman  presbyter  whom  we  have  had  occa- 
sion to  mention  before,  according  to  Eusebius 
mentioned  "  only  thirteen  epistles  of  the  holy 
apostle,  not  counting  that  to  the  Hebrews  with 
the  others."  ^  And  the  historian  adds,  "  Unto 
our  day  there  are  some  among  the  Romans  who 
do  not  consider  this  a  work  of  the  apostle." 

The  East  and  the  West  differed  in  judgment 
a  long  time  on  the  question  of  the  admission  of 
Hebrews  to  the  Canon,  largely  because  they  had 
different  standards  of  canonicity.  The  Alex- 
andrine Fathers,  and  those  of  the  East  generally, 
considered  sufficient  the  test  of  "  apostolicity," 
by  which  they  meant  proceeding  from  the  apos- 
tolic circle  and  agreeing  with  apostolic  doctrine, 

1  H.  E.,  vi.  20. 


l82  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

while  the  West  laid  more  stress  on  actual  apos- 
tolic authorship.  Alexandria,  therefore,  satis- 
fied of  the  virtual  apostolicity  of  Hebrews, 
though  uncertain  as  to  the  precise  authorship,  had 
no  hesitation  about  accepting  the  book.  Rome, 
on  the  other  hand,  having  well-founded  doubts 
about  the  authorship,  hesitated  to  accept  the  book. 
The  judgment  of  Jerome  may  be  taken  to  ex- 
press the  final  view  of  the  West :  "  It  does  not 
matter  who  is  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  since  it  is  the  work  of  a  churchman, 
/l^  and  is  constantly  read  in  the  churches."  ^  In  this 
the  West  distinctly  abandoned  its  first  view,  and 
yielded  to  the  insistence  of  the  East.  Those  who 
hold  that  our  Canon  is  a  Roman  production,  and 
that  the  East  would  have  produced  a  far  dif- 
ferent one,  have  in  this  history  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  a  hard  nut  to  crack.  If  they  are 
prudent  they  will  let  it  severely  alone. 
\  We  discover  from  Eusebius  that  one  other  step 
has  been  taken,  besides  settling  permanently  the 
status  of  Hebrews  and  the  Apocalypse :  out  of  the 
mass  of  other  writings  that  were  received  in  some 
localities  or  quoted  by  some  Fathers  as  Scrip- 
ture, there  was  gradually  separated  in  the  third 

*  Ep.  cxxix. 


THE   "'disputed'"    BOOKS  183 

century  another  group  which,  though  not  defi- 
nitely accepted  as  canonical,  were  now  accepted  by 
"  many."  These  were  the  very  books  whose  ul- 
timate addition  completed  the  Canon.  It  becomes 
important,  therefore,  to  consider  each  of  these 
books  in  turn,  and  to  discover,  if  we  can,  what 
reasons  or  influences  hindered  their  early  recep- 
tion, and  what  led  to  their  final  acceptance. 

The  first  to  be  considered  is  the  Epistle  of 
James.  There  could  not  well  be  a  greater  dif- 
ference between  students  of  Christian  literature 
than  we  find  among  the  recent  critics  regarding 
this  Epistle.  Jiilicher  and  Spitta  are  good  exam- 
ples; both  stand  in  the  first  rank  of  historical 
critics,  and  each  urges  with  equal  confidence  a 
view  that  cannot  be  reconciled  with  the  other's. 
Jiilicher  believes  that  the  book  is  a  homily  in  the 
form  of  a  letter,  "  consisting  of  separate  chapters 
merely  strung  together,  and  treating  of  certain 
questions  of  Christian  life  and  feeling."  In  this 
judgment  of  the  literary  structure  of  James, 
Jiilicher  is  probably  right,  but  why  does  such  a 
structure  discredit  an  apostolic  origin  of  the 
writing?  Who  is  entitled  at  this  day  to  lay  down 
the  law  as  to  how  an  apostle  must  write,  in  order 
to  have  his  work  accepted  as  authentic  by  this 


/^y 


184  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

cultivated  twentieth  century?  But  James,  Jii- 
licher  goes  on  to  say,  could  not  have  attained 
such  fluency  in  Greek  (why  not?  since  other 
apostles  did),  and  could  not  have  composed  an 
epistle  that  makes  religion  consist  in  morality; 
and,  worst  of  all,  the  passage  2 :  14-16  is  "  whol- 
ly inconceivable  as  coming  from  the  mouth  of 
James  in  the  last  years  of  his  life."  Since  many 
scholars  have  so  conceived  it,  Jiilicher  must  be 
wrong  in  saying  that  it  is  inconceivable,  but  let 
that  pass.  The  passage  in  question  is  a  polemic 
against  Paul's  doctrine  of  justification,  says  Jii- 
licher, and  proves  the  writing  to  be  considerably 
post-Pauline.  Harnack  agrees  with  Jiilicher  in 
the  main,  and  both  would  make  the  date  of  the 
Epistle  about  contemporary  with  the  Shepherd, 
say  160. 

There  is,  however,  an  objection  to  this  theory 
that  ought  to  prove  insuperable.  A  reader  of  the 
Shepherd  must  see  that  a  great  change  has  come 
over  the  church  since  the  days  of  the  apostles. 
Simplicity  has  given  place  to  formalism;  the 
church  is  not  a  simple  society  of  the  redeemed, 
but  a  highly  organized  corporate  entity;  baptism 
is  no  longer  the  mere  symbol  of  a  spiritual  fact, 
but  the  means  by  which  a  spiritual  change  is 


THE   ''disputed''    BOOKS  185 

accomplished — a  sacrament ;  in  short,  martyrdom 
has  ceased  to  be  a  simple  witness  for  Christ,  but 
has  become  the  chief  glory  to  which  a  Christian 
can  look  forward.  Now  let  one  turn  from  the 
Shepherd  and  read  James;  if  he  has  any  spirit- 
ual apprehension  whatever,  he  will  feel  instantly 
that  he  is  breathing  a  different  atmosphere — the 
church  and  its  teaching  are  simple,  practical,  not 
formal  and  fanatical.  Jiilicher  thinks  that  to 
make  James  the  earliest  of  the  New  Testament 
Epistles,  as  Meyer  does  in  his  Commentary,  is 
"  grotesque."  Nothing  could  well  be  more 
"  grotesque "  than  to  make  the  Shepherd  and 
James  contemporary  documents.  There  lies  be- 
tween them  at  least  a  century  of  change  and 
degeneration. 

Spitta  shows  more  insight  into  the  real  char- 
acter of  the  Epistle,  but  he  goes  to  the  opposite 
extreme :  he  holds  it  to  be  a  Jewish  composition, 
belonging  to  the  century  before  Christ,  that  has 
been  adapted  to  a  Christian  use.  That  it  is  a 
Jewish  composition,  in  the  sense  that  it  was  com- 
posed by  a  Jew,  is  certainly  true,  and  that  Jewish 
doctrine  has  been  given  a  Christian  turn  is  as 
evident;  but  that  is  exactly  what  we  ought  to 
expect  in  an  Epistle  written  by  James,  in  view  of 


1 86  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

what  the  New  Testament  shows  his  character  and 
position  among  the  early  disciples  to  have  been. 
The  one  passage  that  seems  most  in  keeping  with 
Spitta's  hypothesis  (2:2)  is  not  inexplicable. 
This  very  word  "  synagogue "  is  used  in  the 
Shepherd  to  denote  a  Christian  assembly,  which 
shows  that  such  use,  though  undoubtedly  rare  in 
Christian  literature,  is  not  unexampled.^  At  the 
time  James  wrote,  the  *'  ecclesia  "  and  the  '*  syna- 
gogue "  had  not  been  so  completely  differentiated, 
either  in  name  or  in  character,  as  they  afterward 
became — that  hypothesis  (that  fact  rather)  solves 
all  the  difficulty.  And  in  the  last  resort,  it  will  be 
hard  to  persuade  the  Christian  world  that  the 
book  of  the  entire  New  Testament,  that  shows  the 
most  extraordinary  resemblance  to  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount,  could  have  been  the  product  of  the 
generation  before  Christ. 

All  of  this  is  of  course  foreign  to  our  main 
purpose,  unless  it  can  be  made  to  throw  some  light 
on  the  canonicity  of  James,  which  is  a  question 
in  itself  quite  independent  of  questions  of  au- 
thorship and  date.  But  it  is  self-evident  that,  if 
James  did  not  write  before  160,  his  book  could 
not  have  been  quoted  by  Clement  of  Rome,  in 

^  Hand.,  ii.  9. 


THE    ''disputed'"    BOOKS  187 

97.     There  are,  however,  a  number  of  cases  in 
which  Clement  seems  to  use  the  phraseology  of 
James,   the   most   notable   being   ''Love   covers 
a  multitude  of  sins."     Some  critics  are  inclined 
to  sneer  at  such  echoing  phrases  as  no  real  evi- 
dence that  a  writing  existed  and  was  known,  but 
can  such  an  objection  be  seriously  maintained? 
When  we  meet,  in  any  book  published  since  1870, 
Ihe  phrases  ''  honest  doubt,"  "  faultily  faultless," 
"the  parliament  of  man,"  the  "claims  of  long 
descent,"  we  do  not  hesitate  an  instant  to  say, 
These  are  echoes  of  Tennyson.     And  if  we  met 
one  of  them  in  a  book  published  before  1850 — as 
matter  of  fact  we  do  not — we  should  be  very 
much  surprised  indeed.    Likewise,  when  we  read 
"  lost  leader,"  "  purer  than  the  purest,"  "  a  cen- 
tury of  sonnets  "  and  "  the  first  fine,  careless  rap- 
ture," we  say  unhesitatingly,  That's  Browning. 
We  never  pause  to  consider  the  possibility,  say 
one  chance  in  ten  million,  that  somebody  else  may 
have  hit  accidentally  on  just  those  collocations  of 
words,  but  we  regard  them  as  conscious  quota- 
tions from  well-known  poets,  or  the  unconscious 
use  of  that  common  mintage  which  passes  cur- 
rent everywhere,  though  few  persons  know  whose 
is  the  image  and  superscription.     It  is  surpris- 


l88  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

ing  that  scholars  who  insist,  as  a  primary  prin- 
ciple, that  we  should  treat  the  Bible  "  like  any 
other  book,"  should  continually  reason  about 
biblical  literature  as  they  would  not  about  any 
other. 

The  Didache  and  Epistle  of  Barnabas  contain 
similar  allusions  to  James,  especially  the  words 
describing  the  way  of  death,  nearly  every  one  of 
which  is  from  the  vocabulary  of  James.  The 
Shepherd  has  so  many  correspondences  with 
James  that  Spitta  is  moved  to  consider  the  later 
writing  also  of  Jewish  origin,  with  Christian  in- 
terpolations. These  correspondences  are  so 
numerous  and  so  striking  as  to  make  it  nearly 
certain,  either  that  the  Shepherd  quotes  from 
James  or  James  from  the  Shepherd.  Few 
students  of  both  documents  will  have  any  doubt 
which  is  the  original.  Even  Jiilicher  and  Har- 
nack,  who  make  James  contemporary  with  the 
Shepherd,  do  not  hint  that  the  Epistle  is  the 
derived  writing. 

If  the  book  was  apostolic  and  was  known  so 
early  as  this  sort  of  evidence  would  imply,  how 
came  it  to  be  so  late  in  winning  general  accept- 
ance? It  is  evident  that  epistles  addressed  to 
particular  churches  had  better  opportunities  for 


THE    ''disputed''    BOOKS  189 

Speedy  circulation  than  those  of  a  more  general 
nature.  Not  only  would  the  church  addressed 
prize  a  letter  written  primarily  for  its  members 
more  than  one  intended  for  all  Christians,  but 
the  church  would  take  more  pains  to  make  such 
a  letter  known  to  the  churches  with  which  it 
was  in  correspondence.  Correspondence  between 
the  churches  began  even  in  apostolic  times,  and 
we  learn  from  an  interesting  passage  in  the 
Shepherd  how  extensive  were  the  arrangements 
for  maintaining  such  communications  and  the 
sharing  of  letters  and  other  Christian  literature : 

After  that  I  saw  a  vision  in  my  house,  and  that  old 
woman  came  and  asked  me  if  I  had  yet  given  the  book 
to  the  presbyters.  And  I  said  that  I  had  not.  And  then 
she  said,  "  You  have  done  well,  for  I  have  some  words 
to  add."  But  when  I  finish  all  the  words,  all  the  elect 
will  then  become  acquainted  with  them  through  you. 
You  will  therefore  write  two  books,  and  you  will  send 
the  one  to  Clemens  and  the  other  to  Grapte.  And 
Clemens  will  send  his  to  foreign  countries,  for  per- 
mission has  been  granted  him  to  do  so.  And  Grapte 
will  admonish  the  widows  and  orphans.  But  you  will 
read  the  words  in  this  city,  along  with  the  presbyters 
who  preside  over  the  church.^ 

Although  the  episcopate  was  well  established 
at  the  time  the  Shepherd  was  written,  and  we  are 
assured  by  the  Muratorian  Fragment  that  Her- 

1  Vis.,  ii.  4- 


IQO  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

mas  was  brother  of  the  bishop  of  Rome,  it  is  the 
presbyters  who  have  charge  of  the  sacred  books 
and  determine  what  shall  be  publicly  read  in  the 
church.  This  does  not  imply,  of  course,  that 
the  bishop  would  have  no  voice  in  the  matter ;  he 
would  naturally  have  a  powerful  influence  in  de- 
ciding such  a  question,  but  he  was  no  autocrat, 
settling  all  such  disputed  questions  by  his  ipse 
dixit.  We  shall  have  occasion  to  recur  to  this 
matter  later. 

Even  if  the  Epistle  of  James  were  known 
among  the  Eastern  churches,  it  might  make  its 
way  slowly  elsewhere.  It  seems  to  have  been  the 
loyal  recognition  of  the  East  that  finally  estab- 
lished its  position  in  the  Canon.  Origen  is  the 
first  Father  who  is  known  to  have  quoted  the 
book  as  Scripture  and  as  the  work  of  James.  In 
his  commentary  on  John  19  :  6  he  says,  "  For 
if  it  is  said  faith  exists  apart  from  works,  such 
[faith]  is  dead,  as  we  read  in  the  Epistle  that 
goes  by  the  name  of  James."  But  though  the  last 
clause  might  be  taken  to  imply  a  doubt  regarding 
the  authorship  of  the  book,  Origen  frequently 
quotes  it  as  Scripture,  and  in  his  list  of  canonical 
books  he  includes  this  Epistle.  Cyril  of  Jerusa- 
lem gives  it  in  his  list  of  sacred  books  for  cate- 


BOOKS  191 

chumens,  as  also  do  Athanasius  and  Epiphanius, 
while  Chrysostom  highly  esteemed  the  book. 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  alone  among  the  Greek 
Fathers,  seems  to  have  rejected  it,  though  in  his 
case  the  testimony  comes  at  second-hand  through 
another  writer.^  Didymus,  who  died  in  394,  left 
a  commentary  on  all  the  catholic  Epistles,  which 
testifies  to  the  fact  of  their  acceptance  in  Alexan- 
dria at  that  time,  and  this  conclusion  is  confirmed 
by  the  canon  of  Athanasius. 

It  is  the  fashion  among  critics  to  speak  of  a 
hesitation  in  the  West  about  accepting  James  as 
canonical.  One  can  find  no  ground  for  this  state- 
ment, however,  except  the  omission  of  the  book 
from  the  Muratorian  Fragment,  and  we  have  al- 
ready seen  how  uncertain  a  "  Western  "  authority 
this  is.  But  the  Shepherd  is  also  Western,  ac- 
cording to  the  Fragment  at  least,  and  the  Shep- 
herd undoubtedly  recognizes  James  as  Scripture; 
and  the  Fragment  recognizes  the  Shepherd  as  a 
witness  superior  to  itself,  in  antiquity,  if  not  in 
authority.  A  little  later  Tertullian  quotes  the 
Epistle,  and  his  example  is  followed  by  Lac- 
tan  ti  us.     All  doubts  may  be  said  to  have  ceased 

*  See  Westcott,  451.  Leontius  of  Byzantium,  at  the  close  of  the 
sixth  century,  tells  us  that  Theodore  rejected  "  the  Epistle  of  James 
and  other  of  the  Catholic  Epistles." 


192  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

with  the  generation  of  Jerome  ^  and  Augustine, 
for  these  Fathers  quote  the  book  freely  hke  the 
other  Scriptures,  and  definitely  name  it  as  a 
member  of  the  Canon. 

The  second  and  third  Epistles  of  John  ought 
never  to  have  raised  any  question  of  authenticity. 
Their  style  is  so  strikingly  like  that  of  the  first 
Epistle,  that  either  all  three  are  the  work  of  a 
single  author,  or  some  later  writer  of  the  two 
shorter  letters  has  succeeded  marvelously  in  imi- 
tating the  style  of  his  predecessor.  The  latter 
hypothesis  is  that  to  which  modern  doubters  of 
the  authenticity  of  these  letters  are  reduced,  and 
it  is  too  forced  to  be  credible.  The  difficulty  con- 
cerning the  canonization  of  these  letters  would 
seem  largely  to  have  been  a  doubt  whether  epis- 
tles in  which  the  personal  note  was  so  strong  were 
sufficiently  fitted  for  general  edification  to  en- 
title them  to  public  reading  in  the  churches.  For 
we  must  bear  in  mind  throughout  this  inquiry  into 
the  history  of  the  Canon,  that  in  the  patristic 

*  Jerome  writes,  in  his  book  on  the  "  Lives  of  Illustrious  Men," 
of  this  Epistle:  "James  .  .  .  wrote  a  single  Epistle,  which  is 
reckoned  among  the  seven  catholic  Epistles,  and  even  this  is  claimed 
by  some  to  have  been  published  by  some  one  else  under  his  name, 
and  gradually,  as  time  went  on,  to  have  gained  authority  "  (chap.  2). 
But  Jerome  is  very  conscientious  in  mentioning  all  doubts  and  ques- 
tionings, even  those  that  he  does  not  share.  He  makes  the  canon- 
icity  of  James  in  his  day  unmistakable. 


BOOKS  193 

literature  "  Scripture  "  means  not  merely  writ- 
ings composed  by  apostles  and  believed  therefore 
to  be  inspired,  but  writings  fitted  to  edify  the 
church.  This  principle  will  explain  both  the 
ignoring  of  these  Epistles  by  the  early  Fathers, 
and  the  wavering  and  uncertain  attitude  of  the 
churches  toward  them  after  the  letters  had  be- 
come widely  known. 

The  earliest  reference  to  them  in  the  literature 
is  probably  that  of  Clement  of  Alexandria,  who 
speaks  of  the  "  longer  Epistle  "  ^  of  John,  thereby 
implying  knowledge  of  at  least  one  that  was 
shorter.  Moreover,  Eusebius  assures  us  that 
Clement  summarized  all  the  catholic  Epistles  in 
his  lost  "  Hypotyposes."  ^  Irenseus  accurately 
quotes  by  name  2  John  7,  8,  as  from  "  the  afore- 
said Epistle,"  which,  however,  was  First  John. 
Either  Irenaeus  here  remembers  incorrectly,  or, 
as  many  think,  had  a  MS  in  which  First  John 
and  Second  John  were  given  continuously  as  one 
Epistle.^  If  this  latter  hypothesis  could  be  es- 
tablished, it  might  throw  light  on  the  perplex- 
ing words  of  the  Muratorian  Fragment,  "  two 
belonging  to  the  above-named  John — or  bearing 
the  name  of  John."     This  has  been  independ- 

^  Strom.  «H.   E.,  vi.   14.   i.  ^  Adv.  Haer.,  iii.   16.   18. 

N 


194  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

ently  conjectured  to  mean  that  First  John  and 
Second  John  were  reckoned  as  one,  and  Third 
John  was  the  second  in  this  enumeration. 

It  will  be  noted  that  the  Muratorian  Fragment 
seems  to  disparage  the  authenticity  of  the  Johan- 
nine  Epistles,  and  that  its  doubt  applies  to  all  of 
them.  In  this  it  differs  from  the  general  voice 
of  the  church,  which  accepted  First  John  practi- 
cally without  question.  By  the  time  of  Eusebius  ^ 
there  seems  still  to  have  been  doubt  concerning 
the  shorter  letters,  for  he  speaks  of  "  those  that 
are  called  the  second  and  third  of  John,  whether 
they  belong  to  the  evangelist  or  to  another  per- 
son of  the  same  name."  ^  Origen  had  anticipated 
the  historian  in  this  view  of  the  case  when  he  said, 
"  He  has  left  also  an  epistle  of  very  few  lines ; 
perhaps  also  a  second  and  third ;  but  not  all  con- 
sidered them  genuine,  and  together  they  do  not 
contain  a  hundred  lines."  ^  And  Dionysius  is 
quoted  by  Eusebius  as  speaking  of  "  the  reputed 
second  and  third  Epistles  of  John."  * 

These -more  or  less  explicit  doubts  are  echoed 

iH.  E.,  Hi.  24. 

2  In  the  West  this  doubt  lasted  at  least  as  late  as  Jerome's  time, 
for  he  attributes  Second  and  Third  John  to  John  the  Presbyter  {De 
Vir.  III.  9). 

*H.  E.,  vi.  25.  *  Ibid.,  vii.  25.  11. 


THE       DISPUTED        BOOKS  I95 

by  the  Latin  Fathers.  TertuUian  ignores  the 
Epistle,  while  Cyprian^  quotes  2  John  i,  11, 
and  for  the  rest  the  chief  evidence  of  the  West 
is  the  evidence  of  silence.  This  may,  however, 
imply  that  the  Epistles  were  little  esteemed  by 
comparison  with  the  rest  of  the  New  Testament, 
not  that  their  canonicity  was  denied.  Is  not  that 
practically  their  position  in  the  church  to-day? 
These  letters  are  less  valued,  because  they  are 
less  valuable,  than  the  longer  Epistles,  but  the 
recognition  of  differing  degrees  of  value  among 
the  books  of  the  Canon  is  not  a  denial  of  canon- 
icity. All  doubt  seems,  at  any  rate,  to  have  van- 
ished by  the  time  of  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  who  in- 
cluded them  among  the  "  seven  catholic  Epistles  " 
that  he  commends  to  catechumens,  and  Athana- 
sius  accepts  them  as  canonical  without  question, 
as  do  Jerome  and  Augustine  in  the  West. 

The  Epistle  of  Jude  has  as  good  early  attesta- 
tion as  most  of  the  New  Testament  writings. 
Clement  of  Rome  has  been  thought  to  imitate 
the  doxology,  or,  as  is  perhaps  more  probable, 
both  writers  use  a  form  of  words  that  was  already 
liturgical  and  common  to  all  the  churches.  Per- 
haps the  strongest  attestation,  if  not  the  earliest, 

^De  Haer.  Bapt. 


196  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

comes  from  the  East.  One  passage  in  the  Di- 
dache  ^  is  too  similar  to  Jude  29  to  be  an  accident, 
and  it  is  hardly  satisfactory,  as  in  the  case  of 
Clement,  to  have  recourse  to  a  theory  of  a  com- 
mon origin.  The  critics  have  overworked  that 
theory  as  much  as  orthodox  writers  have 
stretched  too  far  their  "  quotations  "  from  the 
Scriptures  in  the  early  Fathers.  Polycarp's  "  be 
built  up  upon  the  faith  that  was  delivered  to  you  " 
is  almost  certainly  an  echo  of  Jude  3  :  20;  for 
the  phrases  ''  built  up  upon  the  faith  "  and  "  the 
faith  once  for  all  delivered  to  the  saints  "  are  pe- 
culiar to  Jude,  and  have  ever  since  been  much 
used  by  all  Christian  writers.  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria quotes  Jude,  by  name  and  otherwise,  in 
his  "  Stromata  "  and  his  "  Hypotyposes."  In 
this  lost  book,  of  which  we  have  only  a  few  frag- 
ments, Eusebius  ^  tells  us  that  he  gave  summaries 
of  all  the  canonical  Scriptures,  not  omitting  the 
doubtful  books,  such  as  Jude  and  other  catholic 
Epistles.  Theophilus  of  Antioch,  and  Athenag- 
oras  make  references  more  or  less  clear  to  Jude, 
without  naming  the  book. 

In  fact,  the  most  serious  lack  of  attestation  in 
the  East  is  the  absence  of  Jude  from  the  Peshito 

^ii.  7.  *H.  E.,  vi.  14.  I. 


THE        DISPUTED        BOOKS  I97 

version,  and  the  consequent  ignoring  of  the  book 
in  all  Syriac  literature  of  the  early  centuries.  To 
this  should  probably  be  added  the  fact  that  Ori- 
gen,  as  quoted  by  Eusebius,  does  not  include  Jude 
in  his  list  of  canonical  writings,  though  he  quotes 
freely  from  the  Epistle  in  his  exegetical  writings. 
And  Eusebius  tells  us  there  were  doubts  in  his 
day :  ''  These  things  are  recorded  in  regard  to 
James,  who  is  said  to  be  the  author  of  the  first 
of  the  so-called  catholic  Epistles.  But  it  is  to  be 
observed  that  it  is  disputed — at  least,  not  many 
of  the  ancients  have  mentioned  it,  as  is  the  case 
likewise  with  the  Epistle  that  bears  the  name  of 
Jude,  which  is  also  one  of  the  seven  catholic 
Epistles.  Nevertheless,  we  know  that  these  also, 
with  the  rest,  have  been  read  publicly  in  very 
many  churches."  ^  And  elsewhere,  as  we  have 
seen,  Eusebius  classes  Jude  among  the  Antilegom- 
ena,  or  disputed  books. 

Some  of  the  great  Fathers  of  the  East  must 
have  at  least  esteemed  the  book  lightly,  for  we 
find  no  quotations  from  it  in  the  voluminous 
writings  of  Chrysostom  and  Theodoret,  while 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  is  said  definitely  to  have 
rejected  it.     Nevertheless,  it  is  in  the  East  that 

Mi.  23.  25. 


198  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

we  find  the  first  evidence  of  final  acceptance,  and 
that  in  Alexandria,  where  the  first  positive  attes- 
tation is  found.  Didymus  included  it  in  his 
Commentary  of  the  catholic  Epistles,  and  the  sub- 
sequent approval  of  Athanasius,  in'  which  Cyril 
of  Jerusalem  concurred,  gave  the  final  settle- 
ment to  the  long-vexed  question  of  the  Epistle's 
canonicity. 

In  the  West  the  evidence  is  less  clear.  Irenaeus 
may  refer  to  this  book,  for  he  uses  the  phrase 
"  the  faith  that  has  been  delivered,"  and  Ter- 
tullian  certainly  knew  and  esteemed  the  book  as 
Scripture,  for  he  regards  Jude's  quoting  of  Enoch 
to  be  proof  of  the  authority  of  the  latter — "  Enoch 
has  apostolic  testimony  in  Jude,"  he  says.^  Cyp- 
rian ignores  the  book.  While  the  Muratorian 
Fragment  contains  it,  it  is  lacking  in  the  list  of 
books  contained  in  the  Old  Latin  version  given 
by  Cassiodorus,  and  also  in  the  Canon  Momm- 
senianus,  an  African  list  of  the  middle  of  the 
fourth  century.^  It  is  fully  accepted  by  Jerome 
and  Augustine. 

Considering   the   brevity   of   the    writing,    as 

1  De  Cult.  Fern.,  \.  3, 

^De  Inst.  Div.  Lit.,  xiv.  See  Westcott,  p.  584.  Not  all  the 
catholic  Epistles  seem  to  have  been  received  into  the  Latin  canon 
until  the  fourth  century.  For  the  Canon  Mommsenianus,  see  West- 
cott, p.  572,  where  it  is  called  the  "  Cheltenham  List." 


THE    ''disputed''    BOOKS  199 

well  as  its  peculiar  character,  we  must  conclude 
that  it  had  a  wider  acceptance  at  the  beginning  of 
the  third  century  than  we  could  have  reasonably 
expected.     The  doubts  regarding  its  canonicity 
that  thereafter  prevailed  until  its  final  acceptance 
in  the  fifth  century,  and  even  found  occasional 
utterance  after  that,  were  doubtless  due  to  its 
contents.     Modern  critics  object  to  it  largely  on 
the  ground  of  its  doubtful  authenticity,  many  of 
them  holding  that  it  is  a  pseudonymous  writing  of 
the  second  century,  probably  not  earlier  than  150. 
But  unless  the  words  of  Eusebius  are  to  be  taken 
as  expressing  such  doubt,  no  doubt  of  the  aposto- 
licity  of  Jude  is  expressed  by  the  Fathers.     It 
seems  to  be  the  use  of  the  book  of  Enoch,  whose 
canonicity  was  yet  more  in  doubt,  that  threw 
doubts  on  Jude.    The  angelology  borrowed  from 
that  Jewish  Apocalypse  lent  itself  easily  to  the 
use  of  Gnostic  heretics,  and  this  would  inevitably 
cast  suspicion  upon  the  book.     It  was  not  merely 
the  fact  that  Jude  borrowed  ideas  from  Enoch, 
but  that  he  mentioned  the  book  by  name,  thereby 
giving  at  least  a  quasi  recognition  of  its  canon- 
icity, that  caused  the  real  difficulty.    The  church 
was  more  and  more  settling  to  the  conviction  that 
Enoch  was  not  canonical.     The  problem  there- 


200  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

fore  was,  Could  Jude  be  consistently  canonized 
while  Enoch  was  excluded?  And  the  difficulty 
was  sufficiently  grave  to  delay  complete  recogni- 
tion of  Jude  for  more  than  a  century. 

The  second  Epistle  of  Peter  was  the  New  Tes- 
tament writing  that  (next  to  the  Apocalypse) 
was  longest  doubted,  was  latest  admitted  to  the 
Canon,  and  has  been  most  frequently  questioned 
since.  Harnack  thinks  it  the  one  clearly  pseu- 
donymous writing  of  the  New  Testament. 
Doubtless  this  treatment  of  the  Epistle  was  due 
in  part  to  the  lack  of  so  clear  attestation  from 
the  early  Christian  writers  as  the  other  books 
had.  For,  while  some  orthodox  historians  of 
the  Canon  stoutly  maintain  that  it  is  quoted  by 
Clement  of  Rome,  Ignatius,  Barnabas,  Justin, 
Irenseus,  and  the  Shepherd,  it  cannot  be  said  that 
a  good  case  is  made  out.  The  one  sentence  that 
most  frequently  appears  in  the  Fathers  named — 
"  a  thousand  years  are  one  day  " — may  quite  as 
well  be  a  reminiscence  of  Ps.  90  :  4  as  of  2 
Peter  3  :  8  (it  is  an  exact  quotation  of  neither), 
and  no  Father  before  Methodius  (305)  quotes 
it  as  Peter's. 

Beyond  this  lack  of  early  attestation,  the 
literary  character  of  the  book,  and  its  evident 


THE       DISPUTED        BOOKS  201 

literary  relations  to  two  other  books  that  were 
candidates  for  a  place  in  the  Canon,  constituted  a 
serious  difficulty.  The  substantial  identity  of 
Jude  3  to  i6  and  2  Peter  2  :  1-19  ^  can  be  ac- 
counted for  only  on  one  of  two  theories:  one 
writer  borrowed  from  the  other,  or  else  both  bor- 
rowed from  a  common  original.  The  former 
hypothesis  is  the  simpler,  and  hence  to  be 
preferred;  but  in  that  case,  which  is  the  prior 
document?  This  is  a  literary  problem  that  can- 
not be  said  to  be  solved  as  yet,  since  the  foremost 
critics  of  our  day  disagree  in  their  conclusions. 
The  direct,  simple  style  of  Jude  makes  it  probable 
that  this  is  the  older  writing,  and  more  than  this 
cannot  be  said. 

But  there  is  another  book  that  has  unsolved  re- 
lations with  Second  Peter,  the  Apocalypse  of 
Peter.  While  they  have  no  long  passage  in  com- 
mon, there  are  many  sentences  and  phrases  that  one 
must  have  borrowed  from  the  other,  or  both  from 
a  common  source — unless,  indeed,  the  books  are 
the  work  of  a  single  author,  as  a  few  critics  hold. 
Which  of  these  is  the  prior  work  ?  Harnack  says 
that  Second  Peter  borrows  from  the  Apocalypse 
of  Peter,  while  Jiilicher  seems  to  think  that  just 

*  Compare  also  Jude  17,  18  and  2  Peter  3  :  3. 


202  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

the  reverse  is  the  fact/  This  difference  between 
two  of  the  most  famous  critics  is  symptomatic, 
and  confirms  what  is  said  above — the  hterary 
problem  remains  unsolved — very  likely  is  insolu- 
ble. The  Fathers  appreciated  this  twin  problem, 
and  because  they  could  not  solve  it,  and  the  ex- 
ternal evidence  in  favor  of  Second  Peter  was 
weak,  the  doubts  concerning  its  canonicity  were 
obstinate  and  long  enduring. 

Our  first  positive  evidence  in  favor  of  the 
canonicity  of  the  book  is  the  fact  that  Clement  of 
Alexandria  included  it  in  the  summaries  of  his 
"  Hypotyposes."  The  next  Father  who  makes 
reference  to  the  Epistle  is  Origen,  and  he  is  not 
very  consoling  to  one  who  is  looking  for  evidence 
of  its  acceptance,  for  he  says :  "  And  Peter  on 
whom  the  church  of  Christ  is  built,  *  against 
which  the  gates  of  hades  shall  not  prevail,'  has 
left  one  acknowledged  Epistle;  perhaps  also  a 
second,  but  this  is  doubtful."  ^  Nevertheless,  the 
same  thing  is  true  of  this  statement  that  we  have 
found  in  previous  cases — this  Father  nullifies  his 
expressed  doubt  by  frequently  quoting  the  book 
in  his  commentaries  and  homilies,  as  we  learn 

^  For  Harnack's  view,  see  his  Chro nolo gie,   I.:  471;    for  Julicher's, 
see  his  "  Introduction,"  p.  239. 
2H.   E.,   vi.    25.   8. 


THE   ''disputed'"'    BOOKS  203 

from  the  fragments  of  them  preserved  in  Migne's 
Patrology. 

So  late  as  Eusebius,'  at  least,  these  doubts  re- 
mained in  the  East.    '*  One  Epistle  of  Peter,"  he 
says,  ''that  called  the  first,  is  acknowledged  as 
genuine.    And  this  the  ancient  elders  used  freely 
in  their  own  writings  as  an  undisputed  work. 
But   we   have   learned   that     his   second   extant 
Epistle  does  not  belong  to  the  Canon ;   yet,  as  it 
has  appeared  profitable  to  many,  it  has  been  used 
with  the  other  Scriptures."  And  again,'  "  Among 
the    disputed    writings,    which    are    nevertheless 
recognized  by  many,   are  .  .  .  also   the   second 
Epistle  of  Peter."     But  with  Eusebius  the  turn-^^ 
ing-point  is  reached  in  the  Greek  Church.    Didy- 1 
mus  and  Athanasius  accept  the  Epistle  fully,  and ' 
this  voice  of  Alexandria  is  echoed  by  Cyril  ofi 
Jerusalem,  Gregory  of  Nazianzen,  and  the  Greek 
Fathers  generally. 

The  African  Church  seems  to  have  led  in  the 
West  in  acceptance  of  this  Epistle.  At  least, 
that  seems  a  valid  inference  from  the  use  made 
of  it  in  the  well-known  letter  of  Firmilian  to  ^ 
Cyprian  regarding  the  error  of  Stephen.  He  de- 
nounces  the   latter   as   "even   herein   defaming 

1   H.  E.,  iii.  1.  ^Ihxd.,  iii.  25.  3. 


204  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Peter  and  Paul,  the  blessed  apostles,  as  if  the 
very  men  delivered  this  who  in  their  epistles  exe- 
crated heretics  and  warned  us  to  avoid  them."  ^ 
The  reference  must  be  to  Second  Peter,  because 
the  first  Epistle  contains  nothing  of  that  sort. 
For  the  Latin  Church  Jerome  ^  speaks  the  final 
word :  "  Therefore  the  two  Epistles  that  are  as- 
cribed to  Peter  differ  in  style  and  character  and 
in  the  structure  of  words.  From  which  we  per- 
ceive that  he  was  compelled  to  make  use  of  dif- 
ferent interpreters."  Jerome's  idea  is,  of  course, 
that  the  apostle  could  not  write  Greek,  and  as  two 
men  translated  his  ideas  from  Aramaic  into 
Greek,  we  have  a  sufficient  explanation  of  the 
differences  in  style  between  the  two  Epistles.^ 
This  was  an  ingenious  attempt  to  explain  away 
those  differences  of  style  which  no  previous 
Father  mentions,  but  of  which  so  much  has  been 
made  by  modern  critics.  In  any  case,  we  know 
that  the  words  "  ascribed  to  Peter  "  in  the  above 
quotation  do  not  indicate  the  least  doubt  on  the 
part  of  Jerome  as  to  the  canonicity  of  the  book. 
As  in  the  case  of  Hebrews,  he  would  regard  the 

1  Cyprian,  Ep.  74.     (Ox.  75.)  ^  Ep.  cxx. 

*  Again,  in  his  "Lives  of  Illustrious  Men,"  Jerome  says:  "He 
wrote  two  Epistles  that  are  called  catholic,  the  second  of  which,  on 
account  of  its  difference  from  the  first  in  style,  is  considered  by 
many  not  to  be  by  him  "  (chap.  i). 


THE    ''  DISPUTED  ''    BOOKS  205 

question  of  canonicity  as  quite  separate  from  that 
of  authenticity,  and  as  to  the  latter  he  was  indif- 
ferent if  he  were  only  assured  of  apostolicity. 

As  we  sum  up  the  results  of  our  investigation 
into  these  Antilegomena,  we  find  how  clear  and         . 
unmistakable  is  the  evidence  of  the  decisive  in-         l 
fluence  of  1  Alexandria  in  the  settlement  of  the  1 

Canon.     We  have  seen  before  that  we  owe  to 
Alexandrine   theologians   the   retention   of   He- 
brews.   We  now  find  that  the  same  thing  is  true  ^ 
regarding  the   disputed  catholic   Epistles.     The  \ 
example  of  Clement^was  powerful,  if  not  decisive, 
in  fixing  the  number  to  be  recognized  as  seven,  \ 
and  the  adhesion  of  Didymus  and  Athanasius  to 
this  view  proved  decisive.     Whatever  hesitation 
there  had  been  in  the  West,  when  Jerome  and 
lAugustine  followed  the  lead  of  Athanasius,   it 
quickly  disappeared.    The  approval  of  these  three 
Fathers  virtually  settled  the  question  of  the  Canon. 
They   unanimously    approved    the    twenty-seven 
books  of  our  New  Testament,  and  no  more.  With 
their  approval  the  Canon  is  virtually  "  closed." 


VII 


THE  REJECTED  BOOKS 


VII 

THAT  is  an  unusually  judicious  and  dis- 
criminating  remark  of  Harnack's  at  the 
close  of  his  criticism  of  Zahn's  work  on  the 
Canon :  "  The  New  Testament  is  not  the  product 
of  a  collection,  but  a  reduction  of  the  whole  early 
Christian  literature,  including  the  Jewish  Apoca- 
lypses." ^  The  history  of  the  formation  of  the 
Canon  is  a  wonderful  process  of  winnowing  and 
selection.  The  books  that  compose  our  New 
Testament  were  not  hastily  put  together,  but 
gradually,  out  of  a  great  mass  of  competitors,  the 
Christian  churches  came  to  a  complete  unanimity 
in  the  choice  of  those  to  be  reckoned  as  canoni- 
cal. If  there  is  in  all  the  history  of  literature  a 
case  of  the  survival  of  the  fittest,  the  New  Testa- 
ment Canon  is  such  a  case. 

To  the  account  given  by  Eusebius  of  the  canoni- 
cal books  of  his  time,  which  he  divides  into  the 
accepted  and  the  disputed,  he  adds  a  further  list 
of  books  that  were  not  canonical.  Of  these,  he 
names    Clement,    the    Didache,    Barnabas,    the 

^  Das  Neue  Testament  urn  das  Jahre  200,  p.  iii. 

o  209 


210  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Shepherd,  the  Acts  of  Paul,  the  Acts  of  Peter, 
Gospel  of  Peter,  the  Preaching  of  Peter,  and  the 
Apocalypse  of  Peter.  Elsewhere  he  names  the 
Gospel  of  Thomas,  Gospel  of  Mathias,  Gospel 
according  to  the  Hebrews,  and  the  Acts  of  An- 
drew and  John  and  the  other  apostles.  Books 
like  these  he  places  in  a  class  below  the  Antile- 
gomena,  which  he  calls  "  among  the  spurious  "  (iv 
zdi<:  vodoti;^  or  literally,  "  bastards  "  or  "  counter- 
feits ").  It  will  be  seen  that  these  books  corre- 
spond to  the  four  types  of  literature  in  the  Canon : 
Gospels,  Acts,  Epistles,  and  Apocalypse,  and  it 
will  be  convenient  to  consider  them  in  groups  fol- 
lowing that  order. 

Of  the  great  mass  of  uncanonical  "  Gospels  " 
that  had  appeared  by  the  middle  of  the  second  cen- 
tury, not  more  than  three  can  be  said  ever  to  have 
had  the  slightest  chance  of  acceptance.  Such  docu- 
ments as  the  Protevangelion,  attributed  to  James 
the  Less,  the  Gospel  of  the  Infancy,  and  the  Gos- 
pel of  Nicodemus,  had  their  spurious  character 
so  stamped  upon  them,  they  abounded  in  such 
puerilities  and  blasphemies,  that  no  Father  ever 
quotes  one  of  them  as  authority,  or  testifies  to 
their  having  been  read  in  the  churches  anywhere. 
Neither  orthodox  nor  heretic  would  receive  them. 


THE   REJECTED   BOOKS  211 

Their  own  weight  was  enough  to  sink  them  into 
obhvion,  and  in  the  Christian  world  to-day  only 
a  few  curious  scholars  know  of  their  existence. 

With  three  other  "  Gospels,"  however,  the  case 
was  different.  The  Gospel  of  Peter  is  frequently 
referred  to  by  the  Fathers  in  a  way  indicating 
that  its  claims  to  canonicity  were  at  least  con- 
sidered, though  uniformly  rejected.  The  earliest 
reference  to  it  is  by  Serapion,  bishop  of  Antioch, 

about  1 90.     Eusebius  tells  us  that 

2l»  2).  190 
Serapion  wrote  a  treatise  on  the 

*'  so-called  Gospel  of  Peter,"  in  order  "  to  refute 

the  falsehoods  which  that  Gospel  contained,"  and 

the  historian  quotes  the  following  passage: 

For  we,  brethren,  received  both  Peter  and  the  other 
apostles  as  Christ;  but  we  reject  intelligently  the 
writings  falsely  ascribed  to  them,  knowing  that  such 
were  not  handed  down  to  us.  When  I  visited  you  I 
supposed  that  all  of  you  held  the  true  faith,  and  as  I 
had  not  read  the  Gospel  which  they  put  forward  under 
the  name  of  Peter,  I  said,  "  If  this  is  the  only  thing 
that  occasions  dispute  among  you,  let  it  be  read." 
But  now  having  learned,  from  what  has  been  told  me, 
that  their  mind  was  involved  in  some  heresy,  I  will 
hasten  to  come  to  you  again.  Therefore,  brethren,  ex- 
pect me  shortly.  But  you  will  learn,  brethren,  from 
what  has  been  written  to  you,  that  we  perceived  the 
nature  of  the  heresy  of  Marcianus,  and  that  not  under- 
standing what  he  was  saying,  he  contradicted  himself. 
For  having  obtained  this  Gospel  from  others  who  had 


212  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

studied  it  diligently,  namely,  from  the  successors  of 
those  who  first  used  it,  whom  we  call  Docetae  (for  most 
of  their  opinions  are  connected  with  the  teaching  of 
that  school),  we  have  been  able  to  read  it  through,  and 
we  find  many  things  in  accordance  with  the  true  doc- 
trine of  the  Saviour,  but  some  things  added  to  that 
doctrine,  which  we  have  pointed  out  for  you  farther  on.^ 

Origen,  in  his  Commentary  on  Matthew,  speaks 
of  "  a  tradition  in  the  Gospel  of  Peter,"  but  this 
very  equivocal  mention  is  the  sole  citation  of  the 
book  in  patristic  literature.  Theodoret  speaks  of 
this  Gospel  as  having  been  used  by  the  Nazarenes, 
and  a  later  allusion  to  it  by  Jerome  seems  to  be 
based  on  the  testimony  of  Eusebius  ^  rather  than 
on  personal  knowledge. 

This  was  all  that  was  known  until,  in  1866,  a 
parchment  was  discovered  in  Upper  Egypt,  con- 
taining a  fragment  of  this  Gospel,  less  than  six 
thousand  words.  It  gives  the  account  of  the 
passion,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  our  Lord, 
in  the  main  as  in  our  canonical  Gospels,  but  with 
many  amplifications  of  detail,  most  of  which  are 
unimportant,  while  some  would  be  at  least  inter- 
esting, if  their  truth  could  be  established.  For 
example,  Joseph  of  Arimathea  is  said  to  have  been 
the  friend  of  Pilate  and  to  have  begged  the  body 

»H.  E.,  vi.    12.   3-6. 
«H.  E.,  ii.  2. 


THE   REJECTED   BOOKS  213 

of  Jesus  before  the  crucifixion ;  one  of  the  male- 
factors spoke  from  the  cross  rebuking  the  muUi- 
tude,  '*  We  for  the  evils  that  we  have  done  have 
suffered  thus,  but  this  man,  who  hath  become 
the  Saviour  of  men,  what  wrong  hath  he  done 
you?"  The  words  of  our  Lord's  last  cry  are 
given  as,  ''  My  Power,  my  Power,  thou  hast  for- 
saken me."  The  ''  Eli  "  or  "  Eloi  "  of  the  canoni- 
cal Gospels  might  be  translated  "  My  Power," 
and  that  is  probably  the  explanation  of  this 
variation.  The  Docetic  element  of  which  Sera- 
pion  complained  is  found  in  the  statement  that 
when  crucified  "  he  held  his  peace,  as  though 
having  no  pain  " ;  and  to  the  above  words  of 
the  last  cry,  it  is  added,  "  And  when  he  had  said 
it  he  was  taken  up."  The  chief  deviation  from 
the  canonical  account  of  the  passion  is  the  at- 
tempt to  exculpate  Pilate  and  throw  the  entire 
blame  for  the  death  of  Jesus  on  the  Jews  by 
making  Herod  the  judge  who  condemned  him. 
The  account  of  the  resurrection  so  differs  from 
that  given  by  the  canonical  Gospels  as  almost  to 
deserve  to  be  called  totally  different,  and  wher- 
ever it  differs  it  is  for  the  worse. 

From  this  fragment,  brief  as  it  is,  we  can  see 
why  the  Church,   with  so  complete  unanimity. 


214  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

rejected  this  Gospel.  It  was  evidently  a  later 
form  of  the  apostolic  tradition,  deliberately  al- 
tered in  many  particulars  for  purposes  that  may 
be  easily  inferred.  After  a  custom  that  became 
common  in  the  second  century,  the  name  of  an 
apostle  was  attached  to  it  to  give  it  greater  cur- 
rency, but  so  far  as  we  can  learn  it  was  always 
and  everywhere  believed  to  be  pseudonymous. 
We  need  not  feel  a  single  pang  of  regret  that 
the  Gospel  has  perished;  the  brief  fragment  that 
has  been  lately  recovered  adds  nothing  to  our 
knowledge,  is  worthless  for  Christian  edification, 
and  stimulates  little  desire  for  the  possession  of 
the  remainder.  Nobody  will  venture  to  deny  that 
its  exclusion  from  the  Canon  was  wise  and  com- 
pletely justified  by  its  now  proved  character. 

Of  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Egyptians,  we 
know  little  except  the  title,  but  we  may,  if  we 
please,  imagine  a  great  deal.  That  ancient 
homily,  known  as  Clement's  Second  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians — with  which  it  is  now  certain  that 
Clement  had  nothing  to  do — in  chapter  XII 
gives  a  number  of  quotations  purporting  to  be 
the  words  of  our  Lord,  a  number  of  which 
are  not  found  in  any  of  our  four  Gospels. 
One  of  these  is  also  quoted  by  Clement  of  Alex- 


THE   REJECTED   BOOKS  21 5 

andria,  with  this  statement :  "  We  do  not 
have  this  saying  in  the  four  Gospels  that 
have  been  handed  down  to  us,  but  in  the  one 
according  to  the  Egyptians."  ^  This  remark, 
taken  with  the  context,  clearly  indicates  an 
opinion  on  the  part  of  Clement  that  this  Gospel 
is  inferior  in  authority  to  the  four,  since  they 
were  tradita,  "  handed  down,"  as  this  was  not. 
This  is  practically  all  that  we  know  about  this 
Gospel,  but  the  conjectures  and  theories  about  it 
have  been  endless.  These  have  amused  the  critics 
and  done  nobody  else  any  harm.  One  such  con- 
jecture has  to  do  with  Justin.  Inasmuch  as  many 
of  his  quotations  do  not  exactly  agree  with  our 
present  Gospels,  some  have  guessed  that  he  used 
the  Gospel  of  the  Egyptians.  There  is  no  harm  in 
such  guessing — also  no  profit. 

The  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews  has  also 
been  supposed  to  be  the  one  from  which  Justin 
quoted.  Of  this  we  know  hardly  more  than  of 
the  other,  for  many  of  the  apparent  references 
to  it  in  the  Fathers  may  describe  an  early  tradi- 
tion, rather  than  a  written  book.  Eusebius  ^ 
quotes  Papias  as  relating  "  another  story  of  a 
woman,  who  was  accused  of  many  sins  before 

^  Strom,,  iii.    13,  2H.  E.,  iii.  39.  i0. 


2l6  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

the  Lord,  which  is  contained  in  the  Gospel  ac- 
cording to  the  Hebrews."  Some  scholars  have 
plausibly  conjectured  that  this  is  the  story  of 
John  7  :  53  to  8  :  ii,  which  practically  all 
critics  are  now  agreed  was  no  part  of  the  original 
text  of  our  fourth  Gospel,  but  may  by  some  ac- 
cident in  copying  or  otherwise  have  been  trans- 
ferred from  one  Gospel  to  the  other.  Jerome 
tells  us  more  about  this  Gospel  than  any  other 
Father.  He  first  became  acquainted  with  it  by 
hearsay  from  the  Christians  of  Syria.  He  later 
became  acquainted  with,  and  even  copied  and 
translated,  a  Gospel  which  he  called  ipsum  He- 
hraiciim,  "  the  original  Hebrew  Gospel,"  and  he 
appears  to  have  believed  this  to  be  the  orginal 
Hebrew  of  our  Matthew,  for  he  says  that  many 
called  it  Matthaei  authenticum.  But  it  is  uncer- 
tain whether  this  is  what  he  elsewhere  calls 
evangelium  jiixta  {or  secundum)  Hehraeos. 

Two  things,  however,  are  clear:  whatever 
the  relation  between  this  Hebrew  Gospel  and 
Matthew,  it  must  have  differed  considerably  from 
the  canonical  Matthew  of  Jerome's  day,  or  he 
need  not  have  translated  it ;  and,  secondly,  it  was 
unknown  in  the  West,  or  he  would  not  have  taken 
the  trouble  to  render  it  into  both  Greek  and  Latin. 


THE   REJECTED    BOOKS  217 

Beyond  what  Jerome  tells  us,  we  have  only  a  few 
references  to  this  Gospel.  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria quotes  from  it :  "  In  the  Gospel  of  the 
Hebrews  it  is  written  'He  that  wonders  shall 
reign,  and  he  that  reigns  shall  rest'  "  ^  The 
formula  "  it  is  written  "  always  ascribes  the  char- 
acter of  Scripture  to  a  book,  and  it  is  evident  that 
Clement  regarded  this  Gospel  as  authoritative, 
if  not  canonical.  Origen,  who  firmly  believed 
there  are  only  four  canonical  Gospels,  quotes  it 
twice,  but  each  time  with  a  phrase  of  disparage- 
ment— "  if  any  one  gives  credence  to  the  Gospel 
of  the  Hebrews,"  "  if  any  one  chooses  to  accept  it, 
not  in  the  way  of  authority,  yet  for  the  bringing 
out  of  the  question  before  us."  ^  And  Eusebius 
makes  very  clear  the  standing  of  the  book  in  his 
time.  He  tells  us  that  this  is  the  Gospel  "  with 
which  those  of  the  Hebrews  that  have  accepted 
Christ  are  especially  delighted,"  to  which  he  adds 
later  that  the  Ebionites  used  only  this  Gospel 
"  and  made  small  account  of  the  rest." ' 

What  relation,  if  any,  this  Gospel  according 
to  the  Hebrews  had  to  the  Gospel  that,  Papias 
says,  Matthew  wrote  in  Hebrew  (Aramaic),  we 

^  Strom.,  H.  9.  2  Comnientary  on  John  2  :  12;  Matt.   19  :  16. 

8H.  E.,  iii.  27. 


2l8  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

need  not  stop  to  discuss.  When  we  put  together 
our  fragmentary  knowledge  of  this  writing,  we 
find  that  we  know  enough  about  it  not  to  be 
astonished  that  the  Church  declined  to  accept  it 
on  a  par  with  our  four  Gospels.  The  diligence  of 
modern  scholars  has  recovered  from  the  ancient 
literature  twenty-four  brief  fragments  of  this 
Gospel.  The  most  striking  saying  of  our  Lord 
preserved  is  this :  "  The  Holy  Spirit,  my  mother, 
took  me  just  now  by  one  of  my  hairs,  and  carried 
me  away  to  the  great  Mount  Tabor."  ^  "  From 
one,  learn  all,"  says  the  old  Latin  proverb.  We 
may  judge  from  this  how  well  fitted  the  Gospel 
according  to  the  Hebrews  was  to  instruct  and 
edify  the  Church.  He  that  has  tears  to  shed  over 
the  loss  of  this  document  let  him  shed  them  now. 
There  is  one  other  work  that  at  one  time 
seemed  likely  to  become  canonical,  which  differs 
widely  from  any  of  the  preceding,  namely,  the 
Diatessaron  of  Tatian.  Among  all  the  books  at 
any  time  permitted  to  be  read  in  the  churches,  this 
alone  was  avowedly  unapostolic  in  any  sense.  Its 
origin  was  well  known,  its  author  making  no  claim 

1  This  saying  is  quoted  no  fewer  than  five  times  by  Origen  and 
Jerome,  and  evidently  made  a  deep  impression  on  them — as,  indeed, 
it  is  well  fitted  to  do — but  perhaps  not  quite  the  impression  that  it 
makes  on  us  of  to-day. 


THE   REJECTED   BOOKS  2ig 

even  to  have  known  the  apostles.     But  as  it  was 

composed  of  the  very  words  of  the  four  Gospels, 

we  can  easily  see  how  it  might  come  to  be  read 

instead    of    the    original    Gospels. 

B.  2>.  170 
The  Diatessaron  appears  to  have 

been  written  in  Syriac,*  and  obtained  a  wide  cir- 
culation among  the  Syrian  churches.  It  is  sup- 
posed to  have  been  written  while  Tatian  was  still 
orthodox,  but  his  later  heresy  naturally  cast  a 
shadow  of  suspicion  backward,  and  the  circum- 
stance that  he  omitted  the  genealogies  gave  rise 
to  the  suspicion  that  he  removed  them  because 
they  tended  to  prove  that  Christ  was  born  of 
David  according  to  the  flesh.  This  caused 
Theodoret,  bishop  of  Cyrrhus,  420-457,  to  use 
his  influence  and  authority  to  displace  the  copies 
from  the  churches  as  not  only  uncanonical  but 
heretical,  and  to  reintroduce  the  four  Gospels  in 
their  stead.  There  was  an  obvious  justification 
for  this  action,  quite  apart  from  any  question  of 
lurking  heresy  in  Tatian's  book.    Whatever  value 

1  But  Harnack  and  other  scholars  argue  that  the  Diatessaron  must 
have  been  in  Greek  originally,  because  its  title  is  Greek,  the  only 
other  known  writing  of  Tatian,  his  "  Exhortation  to  the  Greeks  "  is 
in  Greek,  and  there  was  not  in  his  time  a  Syriac  version  of  the 
Gospels  from  which  he  could  have  made  his  harmony.  These 
grounds  are  not  sufficient  to  warrant  the  conclusion  drawn,  and 
the  last  is  especially  questionable. 


220  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

a  Diatessaron  may  have  for  private  study — and 
that  it  has  some  would  seem  to  be  proved  by  the 
pubHcation  and  use  of  several  such  compilations 
in  our  own  day — who  would  wish  to  see  one  sub- 
stituted for  our  Gospels  in  the  public  worship  of 
our  churches  to-day  ?  The  precise  sentiments  that 
would  lead  the  vast  majority  of  Christians  to 
reply  with  a  prompt  and  emphatic  negative,  we 
may  believe  were  felt  with  equal  force  by  the 
Christians  of  the  fifth  century. 

Among  the  survivals  of  early  Christian  litera- 
ture it  is  true  that  we  find  a  considerable  number 
of  ''  Acts,"  but  none  of  them  ever  had  a  chance 
of  becoming  canonical.  Not  even  the  names  of 
the  apostles,  pseudonymously  attached,  were  able 
to  give  them  currency  as  Scripture,  though  they 
were  read  to  some  extent  as  edifying  literature. 
The  one  book  among  them  all  that,  for  a  brief 
time  and  in  a  circumscribed  region,  was  received 
with  some  exceptional  consideration,  the  "  Acts  of 
Paul  and  Thecla,"  owed  what  little  fame  and  re- 
spect it  had  to  the  potent  name  of  Paul,  rather 

than  to  the  character  of  the  book. 

There  is  reason  to  believe  that  these 
"  Acts  "  are  based  on  an  older  narrative  that 
possessed  historical  truth,  though  no  scriptural 


THE   REJECTED   BOOKS  221 

authority.  And  this  is  not  at  all  inconsistent  with 
what  Tertullian  says  about  the  document.  In 
his  pre-Montanistic  state  that  Father  did  not 
hold  that  women  had  a  right  to  teach  and  baptize, 
but  apparently  some  had  cited  these  "  Acts," 
which  represented  Thecla  as  doing  both.  To 
which  Tertullian  rejoins : 

But  if  the  writings  which  wrongly  go  under  Paul's 
name,  claim  Thecla's  example  as  a  license  for  women's 
teaching  and  baptizing,  let  them  know  that,  in  Asia, 
the  presbyter  who  composed  that  writing  [the  Acts  of 
Paul  and  Thecla]  as  if  he  was  augmenting  Paul's  fame 
from  his  own  store,  after  being  convicted  and  confess- 
ing that  he  had  done  it  from  love  of  Paul,  was  removed 
from  office. 

This  is  a  very  illuminating  extract  in  more 
ways  than  one.  It  not  only  shows  the  general 
catholic  estimate  of  the  Acts  of  Paul  and  Thecla 
at  the  close  of  the  second  century,  but  it  makes 
clear  the  attitude  of  the  Church  toward  writings 
known  to  be  pseudonymous,  and  the  treatment  of 
those  known  to  be  authors  of  such  writings. 
Here  was  a  man  who  thought  it  a  virtuous 
deed,  or  at  any  rate  a  venial  offense,  to  compose 
a  work  in  the  name  of  Paul  and  try  to  palm  it 
off  on  the  Christian  world  as  genuine.  The 
earlier  document  that  he  used  and  embellished 


222  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

with  silly  miracles  and  sillier  speeches,  if  it  had 
any  title,  was  doubtless  known  as  the  Acts  of 
Thecla.  This  performance  of  his  makes  the 
pseudonymous  publication  of  Second  Peter  psy- 
chologically possible.  It  even  explains  how  a 
writer  of  the  second  half  of  the  second  century 
could  pen  such  words  as  these :  **  For  we  did  not 
follow  cunningly  devised  fables  when  we  made 
known  to  you  the  power  and  coming  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  but  had  been  eye-witnesses  to  his 
majesty.  For  he  received  from  God  the  Father 
honor  and  glory,  when  such  a  voice  was  borne  to 
him  from  the  majestic  glory.  This  is  my  beloved 
Son,  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased;  and  this  voice 
we  heard  borne  from  heaven,  when  we  were  with 
him  in  the  holy  mount"  (2  Peter  i  :  16-18). 
We  can  comprehend  even  this  monstrous  false- 
hood, for  the  writer  is  speaking  in  the  name  of 
Peter,  and  believes  that  by  these  lying  words 
he  is  honoring  Peter,  who  might  have  spoken 
them  in  his  own  person  with  truth;  and  so  he 
has  no  more  compunction  of  conscience  than  a 
novelist  feels  when  he  puts  in  the  mouths  of  his 
puppet  characters  words  that  are  untrue  to  fact. 
But  if  Tertullian  enables  us  to  understand  better 
the  psychological  process  of  the  deliberate  pro- 


THE   REJECTED    BOOKS  223 

duction  and  foisting  on  the  church  of  such  a 
pseudonymous  epistle  as  many  critics  hold  Sec- 
ond Peter  to  be,  he  also  goes  far  to  make  it 
evident  that  to  succeed  in  such  an  attempt  was 
virtually  impossible.  Shall  we  believe  that  the 
forger  of  the  "  Acts "  was  severely  punished, 
while  the  forger  of  Second  Peter  went  free  and 
even  his  name  has  been  lost?  This  passage  from 
Tertullian  puts  a  burden  upon  the  hypothesis  of 
the  pseudonymous  origin  of  Second  Peter  too 
great  to  be  borne,  and  it  may  as  well  be  dismissed 
as  historically  incredible.  The  church  must  have 
known  the  fact,  if  the  epistle  had  been  pseudony- 
mous, and  that  it  would  have  repudiated  the 
epistle  and  punished  the  author  cannot  be  rea- 
sonably doubted. 

Midway  between  the  Acts  and  Epistles,  in  its 
literary  characteristics,  lies  the  Didache.  Clem- 
ent of  Alexandria  quotes  from  it  as  "  Scrip- 
ture,*' though  not  by  name :  "  Such  a  one  is 
called  a  thief  by  the  Scripture;  at  least  it  says, 
Son,  do  not  become  a  liar,  for  lying  leads  to 
theft."  ^  The  first  mention  of  it  by  name  we  find 
in  Eusebius,  who  afiixes  the  epithet  "  so-called  " 
to  the  title  and  places  it  among   the    Ma,  or 

^  Strom.,  i.  20;    cf.  Did.,  iii.  5. 


224  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Spurious  writings,  by  this  double  stigma  indi- 
cating its  totally  uncanonical  repute  in  his  day. 
Athanasius  mentions  ^  it  in  the  same  class  with 
the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  the  Wisdom  of  Sirach, 
Esther,  Judith,  Tobit,  and  the  Shepherd  as 
''  books  not  canonical,  but  appointed  by  the 
Fathers  to  be  read  to  those  that  are  just  coming 
to  us  and  desire  to  be  instructed  in  the  doctrine 
of  godliness."  A  more  liberal  rule  prevailed  at 
Alexandria  regarding  such  books  than  in  other 
Eastern  cities,  as  is  shown  by  Cyril's  earnest  ex- 
hortation to  catechumens  to  read  only  the  strictly 
canonical  writings.  Rufinus,  presbyter  of  Aquilea 
(d.  410),  enumerates '  among  "  other  books  that 
are  not  canonical,  but  are  called  ecclesiastical  by 
most,"  the  Shepherd,  the  Judgment  of  Peter,  and 
the  Two  Ways,  which  is  an  alternative  title  of 
the  Didache. 

The  Didache  is  an  interesting  early  Christian 
document,  discovered  and  published  in  1883  ^7 
Bryennios,  metropolitan  of  Nicomedia.  It  con- 
sists of  two  parts,  the  first  six  chapters  being 
designed  for  catechetical  instruction,  and  the  re- 
mainder consisting  chiefly  of  liturgical  and  disci- 
plinary rules.     The  first  part  was  probably  the 

1  Appendix  V.  2  Appendix  XII. 


THE   REJECTED    BOOKS  225 

original  document,  and  was  known  as  the  Two 

Ways.     It  is  largely  an  echo  of  the  Sermon  on 

the  Mount.    The  liturgical  directions  are  of  later 

date,  but  cannot  have  been  added 

21.  5).  XOO 
much  later  than  lOO,  for  they  show 

an  ecclesiastical  system  like  that  found  in  the 
Epistle  of  Clement  of  Rome,  and  much  simpler 
than  the  letters  of  Ignatius  disclose.  Except  that 
the  first  part  is  httle  more  than  a  chain  of  quota- 
tions from  the  apostolic  Scriptures,  it  is  difficult 
to  understand  how  any  Father  should  have  come 
to  quote  it  as  Scripture,  as  Clement  of  Alexan- 
dria undoubtedly  did,  since  its  quality  is  so  dif- 
ferent from  the  canonical  writings.  That  differ- 
ence of  quality  is  enough  to  account  for  the  fact 
that  Clement  stands  quite  solitary  in  his  treat- 
ment of  the  Didache  as  having  the  character  or 
authority  of  Scripture. 

From  the  groups  of  "  Epistles  "  in  the  early 
Christian  literature,  two  stand  out  far  above  their 
fellows  in  the  estimation  of  believers.  The  first 
Epistle  of  Clement  of  Rome  to  the  Corinthians, 
as  we  have  seen,  was  almost  certainly  written 
during  the  lifetime  of  some  of  the  apostles,  and 
is  probably  of  earlier  date  than  the  Gospel  or 
Epistles  of  John,  about  contemporary  with  the 


226  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Apocalypse.      It  was  generally  believed   in  the 

second  century  to  have  been  the  work  of  the 

Clement  referred  to  by  Paul  as  a 
B,  D*  97  . 

fellow-worker     in     Rome     (Phil. 

4:3),  and  there  is  nothing  impossible,  or  even 

improbable,  in  the  tradition.     That  this  letter  of 

Clement  was  for  a  time  so  highly  esteemed  as 

to  be  regarded  as  Scripture,  and  was  read  publicly 

in  the  churches,  there  can  be  no  question.     The 

earliest  reference  to  it  is  by  Irenseus,  who  says : 

In  the  time  of  this  Clement,  no  small  dissension 
having  occurred  among  the  brethren  at  Corinth,  the 
Church  in  Rome  despatched  a  most  powerful  letter  to 
the  Corinthians,  exhorting  them  to  peace,  renewing 
their  faith,  and  declaring  the  tradition  that  it  had 
lately  received  from  the  apostles.  .  .  From  this  docu- 
ment, whoever  chooses  to  do  so  may  learn  that  he,  the 
Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  was  preached  by  the 
churches,  and  may  also  understand  the  apostolic  tradi- 
tion of  the  church,  since  this  epistle  is  of  older  date 
than  these  men  who  are  now  propagating  falsehood, 
and  who  conjure  into  existence  another  god  beyond 
the  Creator  and  Maker  of  all  existing  things.^ 

Eusebius  bears  unmistakable  testimony  to  it  in 
the  following  terms: 

In  this  same  epistle,  he  [Dionysius  of  Corinth]  makes 
mention  also  of  Clement's  epistle  to  the  Corinthians, 

^  Adv.  Haer.,  iii.  3.  3. 


TKE    REJECTED    BOOKS  227 

showing  that  it  had  been  from  the  beginning  the 
custom  to  read  it  in  the  [Corinthian]  church.  His 
words  are  as  follows:  "To-day  we  have  passed  the 
Lord's  holy  day,  in  which  we  have  read  your  epistle. 
From  it,  whenever  we  read  it,  we  shall  always  be 
able  to  draw  advice,  as  also  from  the  former  epistle, 
which  was  written  to  us  through  Clement"  ^ 

In  Codex  A  this  epistle  is  given  directly  after 
the  regular  Canon,  showing  that  in  the  fifth 
century  it  was  regarded,  to  use  the  distinction  of 
Rufinus,  as  '^ecclesiastical  "  but  not  canonical — 
that  is,  while  it  might  be  read  in  churches,  it  was 
not  recognized  as  Scripture  in  the  full  sense.  If 
ever  a  permanent  deutero-canonical  collection  of 
New  Testament  books  had  developed  in  the 
church,  as  was  the  case  with  the  Old  Testament, 
this  letter  of  Clement  would  undoubtedly  have 
led  the  list. 

We  have  no  definite  statement  for  the  reasons 
of  its  exclusion  from  the  Canon.  It  could  not 
have  been  its  lack  of  apostolicity,  for  Clement 
was  believed  to  be  as  much  a  fellow-worker  of 
the  apostles  as  Mark  or  Luke.*    It  could  not  have 

iH.  E.,  iv.  22.  II. 

*  As  good  a  case  of  "  apostolicity,"  in  the  limited  sense,  can  be 
made  out  for  First  Clement  as  for  Hebrews;  and  nearly  as  good  for 
the  writings  of  Ignatius  and  Polycarp.  Since  none  of  these  became 
canonical  (and  there  was  never  even  an  idea  of  canonicity  in  the 
case  of  Ignatius  and  Polycarp)  some  other  test  must  have  caused 
their  rejection.     This  will  be  more  fully  discussed  in  chap.  lo. 


228  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

been  doubts  of  its  authorship,  as  in  the  case  of 
Hebrews  and  Second  Peter,  for  there  are  no 
recorded  doubts.  It  must  have  been  the  growing 
perception  by  the  Church  that  this  epistle,  by 
virtue  of  its  own  character,  did  not  belong  to  the 
same  class  as  either  the  Pauline  or  catholic  Epis- 
tles. And  no  one  who  reads  the  epistle  to-day 
is  at  all  likely  to  dispute  the  validity  of  the  de- 
cision. Its  often  fanciful  exegesis  of  the  Old 
Testament  does  not  prepossess  one  in  its  favor, 
and  the  writer's  childlike  belief  in  the  fable  of  the 
phoenix  and  other  like  marvels,  is  a  more  serious 
obstacle  to  our  receiving  it,  though  in  the  early 
centuries  it  is  not  likely  that  this  objection  was 
strongly  felt.  Chief  of  all  is  the  internal  evidence 
borne  by  the  epistle  that  it  is  a  secondary  docu- 
ment, not  primary  and  original,  an  echo  of  the 
canonical  Gospels  and  Epistles.  It  is  on  an  en- 
tirely different  spiritual  plane  from  these  writ- 
ings, and  as  this  difference  came  to  be  more 
clearly  perceived,  its  authority  declined,  in  spite 
of  the  fact  that  it  contains  much  excellent  re- 
ligious instruction. 

The  Epistle  of  Barnabas  was  probably  com- 
posed by  an  Alexandrian  Jew,  and  was  highly 
valued  for  a  time  because  of  its  supposed  apostolic 


THE    REJECTED    BOOKS  229 

origin.  Clement  of  Alexandria  seems  to  have 
accepted  its  authenticity,  and  to  have  regarded 
it  as  Scripture,  for  he  both  in- 
cluded it  in  his  "  Hypotyposes  " 
and  quoted  it  repeatedly  in  his  "  Stromata," 
where  he  nearly  always  cites  it  as  the  work  of 
the  "  Apostle  Barnabas,"  and  in  one  case  says 
that  the  author  was  "  the  Apostle  Barnabas,  and 
he  was  one  of  the  seventy,  a  fellow-worker  of 
Paul."  Origen  calls  it  a  "  catholic  epistle,"  and 
by  his  quotations  seems  to  rank  it  among  the 
sacred  Scriptures,  yet  when  he  comes  to  make  a 
list  of  canonical  works  he  omits  it.^  As,  however, 
we  cannot  be  quite  certain  that  Eusebius  has  cor- 
rectly presented  Origen's  ideas  of  the  Canon,  it 
would  not  be  fair  to  press  that  omission  too  far. 

From  this  time  onward  its  repute  seems  to  have 
rapidly  declined.  The  conviction  grew  that  it 
was  not  the  work  of  the  Apostle  Barnabas,  and 
Eusebius  places  it  among  his  list  of  Notha,  or 
"  spurious  "  writings.  Athanasius  and  Jerome  do 
not  describe  it  as  among  those  edifying  writ- 
ings that  are  read  in  church,  and  so  are  eccle- 
siastical though  not  canonical.  The  epistle  itself 
suggests  the  reason  for  its  rejection. 

^  c.  Celsum.,  i.  63. 


230  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

The  authors  of  the  canonical  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  and  the  uncanonical  Epistle  of  Barna- 
bas had  the  same  problem  to  solve:  what  was 
the  relation  of  Judaism  to  Christianity?  They 
solve  it  in  directly  opposite  ways.  The  author 
of  Hebrews  shows  that  the  Mosaic  system  was  a 
series  of  prophetic  symbols  of  the  facts  and  doc- 
trines of  Christianity,  and  having  been  fulfilled 
they  have  passed  away — they  were  but  a  shadow 
of  the  good  things  to  come,  which  are  now  here 
and  possessed  by  Christian  believers.  The  au- 
thor of  Barnabas,  on  the  contrary,  argues  that 
the  Judaic  system  is  perpetually  valid,  but  by  a 
spiritual  and  mystical  interpretation  he  reads 
back  Christianity  into  Judaism.  His  absurd  exe- 
gesis— no  more  absurd,  however,  than  is  to  be 
found  in  Origen  and  many  other  Fathers  of  this 
period — his  misunderstandings  and  inaccuracies 
in  his  treatment  of  the  Old  Testament,  his  con- 
ceited boasting  of  superior  knowledge,  are  in- 
compatible not  merely  with  the  character  of  Bar- 
nabas, but  with  any  high  religious  value  in  the 
writing.  It  is  so  much  below  the  letter  of  Clem- 
ent in  religious  insight  and  spiritual  tone  that 
the  wonder  is  how  it  ever  obtained  any  recog- 
nition as  Scripture.     Probably  its  Alexandrian 


THE    REJECTED    BOOKS  23 1 

origin  is  responsible  for  the  respect  paid  it  by 
Alexandrian  Fathers,  and  there  is  nothing  to 
show  that  the  rest  of  the  Church  ever  shared  the 
views  of  Clement  and  Origen. 

We  come  now  to  those  books  that  may  be 
grouped  under  the  general  name  of  "  Apoca- 
lypses." Of  these  several  attained  at  least  an 
"  ecclesiastical "  character.  The  Muratorian 
Fragment  mentions  an  Apocalypse  of  Peter,  al- 
most if  not  quite  on  a  par  with  the  canonical 

Apocalypse.     Until   recently,   only 
.u  1  ^  ^^  B-2>.  150(7) 

the  name  was  known  to  us.  Clem- 
ent of  Alexandria  included  it  in  his  "  Hypoty- 
poses  " ;  the  Catalogus  Claromontaniis,  an  East- 
ern list  of  the  third  century,  includes  it,  placing 
it  at  the  end  of  the  Canon,  but  Eusebius  rejects  it 
emphatically :  ^  "As  to  that  which  is  called  the 
Preaching,  and  that  called  the  Apocalypse  of 
Peter,  we  know  nothing  of  their  being  handed 
down  as  catholic  writings,  since  neither  among 
the  ancients  nor  among  the  ecclesiastical  writers 
of  our  own  day,  has  there  been  any  one  that  has 
appealed  to  testimony  taken  from  them."  Never- 
theless, the  historian  Sozomon  testifies  ^  consider- 
ably later  (c.  450)  that  "  the  so-called  Apocalypse 

1    H.  E.,  iii.  3.  «H.  E.,  vii.  19. 


232  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

of  Peter,  which  was  deemed  entirely  spurious  by 
the  ancients,  we  have  discovered  to  be  read  in  cer- 
tain churches  of  Palestine  up  to  the  present  day, 
once  a  year,  on  the  day  of  preparation,  during 
which  the  people  most  religiously  fast  in  com- 
memoration of  the  Saviour's  passion." 

The  same  parchment  discovered  in  1886,  in 
Upper  Egypt,  that  contained  a  fragment  of  the 
lost  Gospel  of  Peter,  contained  also  a  fragment 
of  the  apocalypse  ascribed  to  the  same  author. 
If  we  compare  the  stern  reticence  of  John's  treat- 
ment of  the  wicked  with  the  following  extract,  a 
fair  sample  of  more  than  half  of  this  fragment, 
we  shall  understand  perfectly  the  doubts  regard- 
ing the  book  mentioned  in  the  Muratorian  Frag- 
ment, as  well  as  the  unhesitating  final  rejection 
of  a  writing  whose  affinities  are  with  Dante's  "  In- 
ferno," rather  than  with  canonical  Scripture : 

And  over  against  that  place  I  saw  another,  squalid, 
and  it  was  the  place  of  punishment;  and  those  who 
were  punished  there  and  the  punishing  angels  had  their 
raiment  dark  like  the  air  of  the  place.  And  there  were 
certain  hanging  there  by  the  tongue:  and  these  were 
the  blasphemers  of  the  way  of  righteousness;  and 
under  them  lay  fire,  burning  and  punishing  them.  And 
there  was  a  great  lake,  full  of  flaming  mire,  in  which 
were  men  who  pervert  righteousness,  and  tormenting 
angels  afflicted  them.  .  .  And  I  saw  the  murderers  and 


THE   REJECTED   BOOKS  233 

those  who  conspired  with  them  cast  into  a  certain 
strait  place,  full  of  evil  snakes,  and  smitten  by  those 
beasts,  and  thus  turning  to  and  fro  in  that  punishment; 
and  worms,  as  it  were  clouds  of  darkness,  afflicted  them. 
And  the  souls  of  the  murdered  stood  and  looked  upon 
the  punishment  of  those  murderers  and  said:  O  God, 
thy  judgment  is  just.  .  .  And  near  those  were  again 
women  and  men  gnawing  their  own  lips,  and  being 
punished  and  receiving  a  red-hot  iron  in  their  eyes: 
and  these  were  they  who  blasphemed  and  slandered  the 
way  of  righteousness.^ 

But  of  all  the  books  of  the  apocalyptic  nature, 
the  one  that  had  the  widest  circulation  in  the 
church,  and  came  nearest  to  canonization,  was  the 
Shepherd,  which  we  already  have  had  occasion 
to  mention  frequently.  No  doubt  the  confusing 
of  the  Hermas  believed  to  be  its  author  with  the 
Hermas  mentioned  by  Paul  in  his  salutations  to 
the  church  at  Rome  (Rom.  16  :  14)  had  much 
to  do  with  this,  but  the  character  of  the  book  still 
more  explains  its  vogue.  The  same  qualities  that 
made  the  Apocalypse  of  John  so  highly  esteemed 
in  the  West  in  an  age  of  persecution,  and  that 
gfained  even  for  the  Apocalypse  of 
Peter  an  adventitious  and  tem- 
porary favor,  made  the  Shepherd  an  extremely 
popular  book  in  the  East,  where  it  was  chiefly 
known,  read,  and  admired. 

1  ANF,  ix  :   145,   146. 


234  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Even  in  the  West,  however,  it  was  known  and 
highly  esteemed  by  some,  for  Irenseus  quotes  ^ 
it  as  '*  Scripture  " ;  but  Irenaeus  is  a  Western 
Father  only  in  the  sense  that  he  spent  his  active 
life  in  Gaul.  In  education,  feeling,  thought,  he 
was  Eastern;  and  in  this  case,  it  is  an  Eastern 
judgment  that  he  reflects.  Tertullian,  who  is 
more  truly  Western,  rejects  the  book  contemp- 
tuously, calling  it  "  that  Shepherd  of  Adulterers," 
and  elsewhere  more  formally  records  his  objec- 
tion to  it :  '*  But  I  would  yield  my  ground  to  you 
if  the  writing  of  the  Shepherd,  which  is  the  only 
one  that  favors  adulterers,  had  deserved  to  find 
a  place  in  the  divine  Canon;  if  it  had  not  been 
habitually  judged  by  every  council  of  churches 
(even  of  your  own)  among  apocryphal  and  false 
[writings].  I,  however,  imbibe  the^ Scriptures  of 
that  Shepherd  who  cannot  be  broken."  But  it  is 
easy  to  understand  the  cause  of  Tertullian's  hos- 
tility: the  Shepherd  is  unmistakably  anti-Mon- 
tanistic  in  teaching,  and  he  could  therefore  see  no 
good  in  it.  Yet  the  author  of  the  Muratorian 
Canon,  who  has  no  such  prejudice,  says  distinctly 
that  while  the  book  should  be  read  (he  evidently 
means  privately),  "  it  can  never  be  publicly  used 

^  Adv.  Haer.j  iv.  20.  2. 


THE   REJECTED   BOOKS  235 

in  the  church,  either  among  the  prophets  ...  or 
the  apostles."  ^  In  the  second  century,  therefore, 
the  West  was  decidedly  unfavorable  to  the  canon- 
izing of  the  Shepherd. 

Nevertheless,  the  book  long  continued  to  en- 
joy peculiar  favor,  especially  in  the  East.  In 
Alexandria  it  seems  to  have  been  especially 
valued.  Clement  quotes  it  or  refers  to  it,  three 
times  by  the  author's  name,  and  several  times 
more  by  title  only.  Though  he  does  not  expressly 
cite  it  as  Scripture,  he  quotes  it  in  connection  with 
Scripture,  with  no  indication  of  any  difference  of 
quality  or  authority.  In  some  cases  his  language 
cannot  be  taken  to  mean  less  than  approval  of  the 
book  as  inspired,  as  where  he  says,  "  Divinely, 
therefore,  the  power  which  spoke  to  Hermas  by 
revelation,  said,  *  The  visions  and  revelations  are 
for  those  who  are  of  double  mind,  who  doubt  in 
their  hearts  if  these  things  are  so  or  not.'  "  ^ 

Origen  is  yet  more  plain  spoken  in  his  ap- 
proval. He  does  not  hesitate  to  say  of  the  Shep- 
herd, in  his  commentary  on  Rom.  16  :  4:  "I 
think  that  Hermas  is  the  author  of  the  tract  which 
is  called  the  Shepherd,  a  writing  that  seems  to  me 
very  useful  and,  as  I  think,  divinely  inspired." 

1  Appendix  I.  ^  Strom.,  29;    cf.,  Shep.  Vis.,  ii.  4. 


236  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

This  may  be  taken  as  Origen's  personal  opinion 
that  the  book  was  worthy  of  a  place  in  the  Canon, 
but  he  does  not  testify  that  it  was  actually  re- 
ceived as  canonical  in  his  time.  On  the  contrary, 
if  we  may  trust  the  accuracy  of  Eusebius,  when 
Origen  comes  to  make  a  list  of  the  canonical 
books,  he  pointedly  omits  the  Shepherd.  And  in 
his  commentary  on  Matthew,  he  prefixes  this 
cautious  statement  to  a  quotation :  ''  If  one 
should  dare,  using  a  Scripture  which  is  in  cir- 
culation in  the  Church,  but  not  acknowledged  by 
all  to  be  divine."  This  passage  from  Origen 
seems  to  be  much  less  known,  at  any  rate  it  is 
far  less  frequently  quoted,  than  the  other  given 
above. 

By  the  time  of  Eusebius,  the  status  of  the  book 
as  extra-canonical  seems  to  have  become  definitely 
fixed,  for  he  puts  it  among  the  ''  spurious  "  books, 
though  in  another  passage  he  speaks  somewhat 
more  favorably  of  it :  "  This  too  has  been  dis- 
puted by  some,  and  on  their  account  cannot  be 
placed  among  the  acknowledged  books ;  while  by 
others  it  is  considered  quite  indispensable,  es- 
pecially to  those  who  need  instruction  in  the 
elements  of  the  faith.  Hence,  as  we  know,  it  has 
been  publicly  read  in  the  churches,  and  I  have 


THE    REJECTED    BOOKS  237 

found  that  some  of  the  most  ancient  writers  used 
it."  ^  So  late  as  the  close  of  this  century,  Atha- 
nasius  for  the  East  and  Rufinus  -  for  the  West, 
testify  that  the  Shepherd  is  still  considered  to  be 
an  edifying  book,  and  is  even  read  in  churches, 
but  is  not  canonical  in  the  full  sense.  The  MSS 
testify  that  this  usage  continued  for  some  time. 
The  Codex  Claromontanus,  belonging  to  the 
seventh  century,  places  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas 
before  the  Revelation  of  John,  and  after  the  Reve- 
lation gives  the  Shepherd,  Acts  of  Paul,  and 
Revelation  of  Peter. 

A  book  that  was  so  long  regarded  in  the  Church 
as  second  only  to  Scripture,  if  not  itself  to  be 
received  as  Scripture,  is  certainly  worthy  of  re- 
spectful study.  Indeed,  the  formation  of  the 
Canon  may  be  said  to  have  turned  on  this  book. 
The  Shepherd  begins  with  a  series  of  visions,  five 
in  number.  In  the  first,  a  woman  named  Rhoda, 
whose  slave  Hermas  formerly  was,  appears  to 
him  and  reproaches  him  for  his  impure  passion 

1  H.  E.,  iii.  5. 

2  Jerome,  a  contemporary  of  Rufinus,  writes  as  follows:  "Her- 
mas, whom  the  Apostle  Paul  mentions  in  writing  to  the  Romans, 
.  .  is  reputed  to  be  the  author  of  the  book  which  is  called  Pastor, 
and  which  is  also  read  publicly  in  some  churches  of  Greece.  It  is 
in  fact  a  useful  book,  and  many  of  the  ancient  authors  quote  from 
it  as  authority,  but  among  the  Latins  it  is  almost  unknown "  (JDe 
Vir.,  III.  ch.  x). 


238  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

for  her.  She  then  withdraws  into  the  heavens, 
leaving  him  overwhelmed  with  his  newly  roused 
sense  of  guilt,  when  an  aged  woman  appears  to 
him,  whom  he  discovers  to  be  the  Church.  In 
three  successive  visions,  the  Church  growing  and 
spreading,  the  Church  purified  by  suffering,  and 
the  terrors  of  the  judgment  are  shown  to  him  and 
expounded  by  this  aged  woman.  The  fifth  vision 
is  something  more  than  a  vision  {opaati;)^  it  is 
a  Revelation  {d.noxdXtj<pt(:) .  The  "  Shepherd,  the 
angel  of  repentance  "  now  appears,  and  delivers 
to  Hermas  twelve  Mandates  and  ten  Similitudes, 
which  he  is  charged  to  write  down.  This  is  the 
main  feature  of  the  book,  for  which  the  visions 
are  only  introductory  and  preparatory.  There  is 
much  sound  Christian  doctrine  in  the  writing 
and  excellent  ethical  teaching,  but  this  is  inter- 
mingled with  so  much  that  is  fanciful,  even  absurd 
and  grotesque,  that  one  of  our  age  can  only 
wonder  how  his  fellow-Christians  could  ever  have 
found  edification  in  the  reading  of  it. 

The  Shepherd  has  been  called  the  "  Pilgrim's 
Progress  "  of  the  early  Church,  but  except  that 
Bunyan  used  a  framework  of  fiction,  and  put  his 
religious  teaching  into  similitudes,  there  is  no 
point  of  contact  between  them.     Indeed,  no  com- 


THE   REJECTED    BOOKS  239 

parison  of  two  works  in  literature  could  be  more 
inept  and  misleading.  Bishop  Lightfoot  com- 
pared it  to  Dante's  "  Divine  Comedy,"  and  sug- 
gested that  the  function  of  Rhoda  is  like  that  of 
Beatrice,  but  the  learned  bishop  was  evidently  a 
better  scholar  than  literary  critic.  Comparisons 
like  these  do  not  illuminate,  they  merely  mislead, 
and  one  who  is  induced  by  them  to  undertake  the 
reading  of  the  Shepherd,  in  the  hope  of  finding  in 
it  something  of  the  supreme  literary  gift  of  Dante 
and  Bunyan,  will  be  deeply  disappointed.  The  one 
thing  he  will  be  unable  to  understand  is,  how  any 
Christian  of  good  sense  should  ever  have  been  will- 
ing to  accept  this  book  as  Scripture.  That  it  was 
so  accepted  for  several  generations  by  a  consider- 
able part  of  the  Church,  measures  better  than  any 
other  fact  the  spiritual  insight  and  literary  dis- 
cernment of  those  times. 

As  to  these  rejected  books,  taken  as  a  class, 
what  have  we  discovered  by  our  inquiry?  That 
for  a  time,  longer  or  shorter  in  each  case,  they 
were  quoted  as  Scripture  by  some  Fathers,  while 
others  as  pointedly  declined  to  accept  their  au- 
thority. That  in  a  region,  larger  or  smaller,  they 
were  read  in  the  churches  along  with  the  canon- 
ical writings,  as  at  least  useful  and  edifying  books. 


240  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

That  doubts  regarding  their  canonicity  can  in 
some  cases  be  traced  from  their  eadiest  attesta- 
tions, and  that  such  doubts,  once  started,  continue 
to  grow  until  they  become  convictions.  That  the 
final  rejection  of  these  books  was  practically 
unanimous — East  and  West,  in  spite  of  their  nu- 
merous and  growing  differences  about  other 
matters,  being  in  cordial  agreement  on  this  ques- 
tion. That,  so  far  as  any  evidence  yet  examined 
goes  to  show,  this  was  the  gradually  formed,  un- 
forced decision  of  the  churches  and  Fathers,  act- 
ing with  little  or  no  concert.  That  this  final  de- 
cision is  amply  accounted  for  and  justified  by  the 
character  of  the  rejected  books  themselves.  The 
hypothesis  of  rejection  by  ecclesiastical  authority 
is  entirely  gratuitous  and  unnecessary,  as  well  as 
unsustained  by  fact. 


VIII 

THE  VOICE  OF  AUTHORITY 


VIII 

No  reader  can  have  failed  to  note  the  recur- 
rence, in  the  preceding  chapters,  of  the 
phrase  *'  read  in  the  churches."  It  is  not  the  sole 
appeal,  but  it  is  the  constant  appeal  of  those  Fa- 
thers that  discuss  the  canonicity  of  any  book. 
What  is  the  significance  of  that  phrase?  What 
are  we  fairly  entitled  to  infer  from  the  use  of 
those  words  by  the  Fathers,  down  to  the  middle 
of  the  fifth  century  ? 

Negatively,  we  can  infer  that  there  had  been 
no  official  decision  concerning  the  canonicity  of 
doubtful  books.  It  is  true  that  a  passage  already 
quoted  from  Tertullian  seems  to  contradict  this 
inference.  He  says  that  the  Shepherd  had  "  been 
habitually  judged  by  every  council  of  churches 
(even  of  your  own)  among  apocryphal  and  false 
[writings]."  But  Tertullian  is  here  obviously 
rhetorical,  and  he  specifies  no  such  councils  which, 
in  any  case,  must  have  been  mere  local  synods  and 
therefore  void  of  authority  beyond  their  own  im- 
mediate jurisdiction.  And  there  is  a  difference 
also  between  a  synod's  deciding  that  a  certain 

243 


244  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

book  should  not  be  received  as  Scripture,  and  a 
synod's  making  a  general  decree  on  the  Canon. 
No  evidence  remains  that,  up  to  Tertullian's  day, 
there  had  been  any  such  decree,  and  the  evidence 
is  overwhelming  that  there  had  not.  Besides,  it  is 
quite  possible  that  we  have  not  the  true  original 
reading  here  in  Tertullian's  text,  which  is  ad- 
mittedly corrupt  and  demands  frequent  emenda- 
tion. His  phrase  ah  omni  concilia  ecclesiarum 
(by  every  council  of  churches)  may  easily  have 
been  ab  omni  consilio,  "  by  the  general  judgment 
of  churches,"  which  is  accordant  with  the  facts 
as  we  know  them,  while  the  text  that  has  come 
down  to  us  contradicts  every  other  source  of  in- 
formation about  this  period. 

Positively,  we  may  infer  that,  down  to  the 
middle  of  the  fifth  century,  the  question  of  canon- 
icity  had  been  a  question  for  the  churches  to  de- 
cide, and  that  they  had  in  fact  decided  it,  each 
for  itself.  Canonicity  was  a  question  of  usage, 
and  each  church  had  its  own  usage,  which  it 
settled  quite  independently,  so  far  as  any  external 
j  authority  was  concerned,  but  with  some  decent 
regard  for  the  usages  elsewhere  prevailing. 
Alexandria  had  one  usage,  Antioch  another, 
Carthage  had  traditions  of  her  own,  and  Rome's 


THE   VOICE   OF   AUTHORITY  245 

were  different  still.  But  there  was  a  growing 
tendency  toward  assimilation  and  uniformity  of 
usage,  which  by  the  end  of  the  fourth  century  had 
settled  the  question  of  the  Canon,  as  the  simulta- 
neous testimony  of  Athanasius  for  the  East  and 
Jerome  and  Augustine  for  the  West,  fully  assures 
us.  Only  when  the  churches  had  thus  reached  a 
full  agreement,  on  the  basis  of  independent  action, 
did  councils  begin  to  speak,  and  what  they  spoke 
was  avowedly  nothing  but  a  confirmation  of 
usage  and  doctrine  already  existing. 

But  before  we  examine  these  conciliar  declara- 
tions, in  which  the  voice  of  authority  spoke,  there 
is  another  interesting  question  to  consider,  How 
was  the  usage  of  each  ch^irch  settled?  Whose 
voice  was  potent  in  deciding  what  books  should  be 
read,  and  which  should  not  ?  It  may  as  well  be  ad- 
mitted at  the  outset  that  data  for  the  satisfactory 
answering  of  this  question  are  wanting.  We 
have  a  little  evidence,  but  it  is  soon  exhausted, 
and  then  we  must  have  recourse  to  conjecture. 
The  very  word  sends  a  shiver  along  the  conserva- 
tive spine,  but  there  is  conjecture  and  conjecture. 
Mere  haphazard  guessing  is  not  only  useless,  but 
quite  certain  to  be  harmful,  in  all  historic  in- 
vestigation. On  the  other  hand,  conjecture  that  is 


246  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

the  mere  prolongation  into  the  unknown  of  lines 
of  evidence  clearly  drawn,  in  accordance  with 
other  known  facts  and  rational  principles,  almost 
deserves  to  be  called  an  addition  to  our  solid 
knowledge. 

The  danger  of  this  process  consists  in  the  con- 
stant temptation  that  besets  the  investigator  to 
prolong  some  one  line  of  evidence,  to  the  ex- 
clusion of  all  others,  until  this  hypothesis  so  takes 
possession  of  the  mind  that  evidence  to  the  con- 
trary cannot  be  appreciated,  and  is  even  uncon- 
sciously distorted.  A  flagrant  instance  of  this 
will  presently  be  given. 

The  most  influential  persons  in  the  early  Chris- 
tian communities  were  the  bishops.  From  the 
time  of  Ignatius  they  were  considered  the  center 
of  unity  and  authority.  In  the  settlement  of 
questions  of  this  sort  their  voices  would  neces- 
sarily be  potent,  in  many  cases  decisive.  When 
they  were  men  of  exceptional  force  of  person- 
ality or  repute  for  learning,  their  advice  was 
often  sought  by  other  churches.  But  the  bishop 
of  the  second  century  was  not  an  autocrat;  he 
was  president  of  a  council  of  presbyters,  of  whom 
he  was  chief,  not  despot.  He  had  to  convince  the 
presbyters  of  the  wisdom  of  his  decisions  before 


THE    VOICE    OF   AUTHORITY  247 

they  became  the  decisions  of  the  church.  Igna- 
tius, who  so  magnifies  the  episcopate  as  to  en- 
join the  churches  to  which  he  writes  to  '*  do 
nothing  without  the  bishop,"  also  recognizes  the 
importance  of  the  presbyters.  ''  For  your  justly 
renowned  presbytery,"  he  writes  to  the  Ephesians, 
'*  worthy  of  God,  is  fitted  as  exactly  to  the  bishop 
as  the  strings  are  to  the  harp.  Therefore  in 
your  concord  and  harmonious  love,  Jesus  Christ 
is  sung."  ^  And  to  the  Trallians  he  writes,  **  It  is 
therefore  necessary  that,  as  indeed  ye  do,  so 
without  the  bishop  ye  should  do  nothing,  but 
should  also  be  subject  to  the  presbytery,  as  to  the 
apostle  of  Jesus  Christ."  And  again,^  ''  He  who 
does  anything  apart  from  the  bishop,  and  presby- 
tery, and  deacons,  such  a  man  is  not  pure  in  his 
conscience." 

And  if  it  be  objected  that  the  formation  of  the 
Canon  was  long  subsequent  to  Ignatius,  when  the 
episcopate  had  greatly  enlarged  its  functions  and 
power,  it  may  be  replied  that  this  idea  of  the  re- 
lations of  presbyters  and  bishops  did  not  cease 
in  the  Church  for  several  centuries.  We  find 
Irenseus  exhorting  in  precisely  the  same  strain, 
**  Wherefore  it  is  incumbent  to  obey  the  presby- 

iChap.   IV.  2  Chap.  11, 


248  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

ters  who  are  in  the  Church."  ''  For  these  also  " 
he  says  ^  again  of  the  presbyters,  "  preserve  this 
faith  of  ours  in  the  one  God  .  .  .  and  they  ex- 
pound the  Scriptures  to  us  without  danger, 
neither  blaspheming  God,  nor  dishonoring  the 
patriarchs,  nor  despising  the  prophets."  And 
to  insure  his  orthodoxy,  as  we  have  seen  before, 
every  believer  is  exhorted  to  read  the  Scriptures 
^'  diligently  in  company  with  those  who  are  pres- 
byters in  the  Church."  Irenaeus  uniformly  and 
consistently  makes  the  presbyters,  not  the  bishop, 
prominent  in  this  public  reading  and  exposition 
of  the  Scriptures,  the  authority  to  which  the  lay- 
man may  confidently  turn  for  guidance.  The  ad- 
ministrative function  was  long  a  more  important 
feature  of  the  episcopate  than  the  teaching  func- 
tion, and  the  bishops  were  better  financiers  and 
organizers  than  they  were  preachers.  And  so 
late  as  Cyprian's  day,  at  least,  presbyters  retained 
so  much  independence  that  they  sometimes  vio- 
lated the  Ignatian  injunction,  "  do  nothing  with- 
out the  bishop  " ;  for  we  find  Cyprian  writing  a 
rather  indignant  letter  to  the  presbyters  and  dea- 
cons who,  without  the  bishop's  concurrence,  had 
"  claimed   to  themselves  entire  authority "   and 

^  Adv.  Haer.,  iv.  26.  2. 


THE   VOICE    OF   AUTHORITY  249 

admitted  some  of  the  ''  lapsed  "  to  communion 
with  the  Church/ 

In  the  second  century,  and  even  later,  the  lay- 
men were  a  force  that  had  to  be  reckoned  with. 
Among  the  famous  Christian  writers  during  the 
formative  period  of  the  Canon,  included  in  all 
editions  of  the  Fathers,  were  Aristides  and 
Justin  and  Athenagoras  and  Lactantius — all 
laymen.  As  for  the  actual  influence  of  presby- 
ters, even  so  late  as  the  fifth  century,  let  such 
names  as  Tatian,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Ter- 
tullian,  Origen,  Jerome,  Rufinus,  speak.  Gen- 
erally, however.  Father  means  bishop,  because 
the  learning  and  ability  that  would  qualify  one 
to  write  books  of  lasting  value  usually  marked 
a  man  out  for  election  to  the  episcopate.  But  it 
is  qualities  of  mind  and  heart  that  rank  men 
among  the  Fathers  of  the  church,  not  possession 
of  official  rank. 

Now  since  the  bulk  of  patristic  writings  is  of 
episcopal  origin,  we  may  fairly  expect  to  find 
such  writers  magnifying  their  office,  at  least  as 

1  Cyprian,  Ep.  ix.  It  might  be  thought  to  be  pressing  the  matter 
hard  to  quote  here  again  the  evidence  previously  cited,  of  presby- 
terial  activity  in  the  circulation  of  early  Christian  literature,  from 
the  Shepherd,  Vis.,  ii.  4.  Even  if  this  is  a  fiction,  as  far  as  the 
reference  to  Clement  is  concerned,  Grapte  was  evidently  a  presbyter, 
and  wras  enjoined  to  read  the  book  to  the  Roman  Christians. 


250  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

much  as  hard  facts  would  allow.  What  specific 
instances  do  we  find,  then,  in  the  matter  of  di- 
rect episcopal  interference  with  the  churches  in 
this  question  of  canonicity?  No  more  than  two, 
and  these  of  more  than  doubtful  relevance.  They 
have  been  already  mentioned,  but  here  demand 
more  thorough  examination.  The  first  is  the 
case  of  Serapion,  bishop  of  Anti- 
och  about  190.  There  was  a  dis- 
pute in  the  parish  of  Rhossus,  in  Syria,  regarding 
the  reading  of  the  Gospel  of  Peter.  When  their 
bishop  visited  them,  they  asked  him  about  it,  and 
he,  not  having  read  the  book,  said,  "  If  this  is 
the  only  thing  that  occasions  dispute  among  you, 
let  it  be  read."  But  later,  having  read  the  book 
carefully  and  found  that  it  contained  Docetic 
heresy,  he  says,  "  I  will  hasten  to  come  to  you 
again.  Therefore,  brethren,  expect  me  shortly." 
So  much  we  learn  from  Eusebius,  but  we  do  not 
learn  from  him  or  from  any  other  source  how  the 
matter  was  adjusted.  The  bishop's  decision  in 
the  first  instance  seems  rather  a  matter  of  advice 
than  of  judicial  authority,  and  on  his  second  visit 
he  would  reverse  his  advice  and  do  what  he  could 
to  have  the  book  excluded  from  public  reading. 
Very  likely  he  was  successful,  but  that  we  do  not 


THE   VOICE    OF    AUTHORITY  25 1 

know,  still  less  do  we  know  that  he  succeeded  by 
the  exercise  of  episcopal  authority.  A  bishop  in 
the  year  190  was  not  the  bishop  of  the  year  490. 
The  other  case  of  episcopal  interference  is  that 
of  Theodoret,  bishop  of  Cyrrhus, 
ni  byna,  about  450.  His  story,  ni 
his  own  words,  is  herewith  reproduced  in  full: 

Tatian  also  composed  the  Gospel  called  Diatessaron, 
removing  the  genealogies,  and  all  the  other  passages 
which  show  that  Christ  was  born  of  David  according 
to  the  flesh.  This  was  used,  not  only  by  the  members 
of  his  party,  but  even  by  those  who  followed  the  apos- 
tolic doctrine,  as  they  did  not  perceive  the  evil  design 
of  the  composition,  but  used  the  book  in  their  simplicity 
for  its  conciseness.  And  I  found  also  myself  more 
than  two  hundred  such  books  in  our  churches,  which 
had  been  received  with  respect;  and  having  gathered 
all  together,  I  caused  them  to  be  laid  aside,  and  in- 
troduced in  their  place  the  Gospels  of  the  four  evan- 
gelists. ^ 

The  language  is   significant — "  caused  them  to 
be  laid  aside."     No  doubt  he  did  just  that,  but 

1  This  case  of  Theodoret  and  the  Diatessaron  is  the  only  instance 
on  record  of  the  destruction  of  Christian  literature — if,  as  some 
think,  these  copies  were  destroyed  (Theodoret  himself  only  says 
"  laid  aside  ").  When  other  books  perished,  so  far  as  we  know,  they 
did  so  by  a  natural  process.  They  disappeared  because  they  were 
little  valued.  Could  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Egyptians,  for 
example,  ever  have  perished  if  it  had  been  esteemed  like  the  canon- 
ical four — or  anything  within  reasonable  distance  of  such  esteem? 
The  very  fact  of  disappearance  is  emphatic  testimony  to  the  relative 
worthlessness  of  a  book. 


252  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

only  after  he  had  convinced  the  several  churches, 
by  due  instruction,  that  the  Diatessaron  ought 
not  to  be  substituted  for  the  four  Gospels.  Even 
in  450  the  power  of  the  bishop,  though  greatly 
increased,  was  by  no  means  despotic ;  the  presby- 
ters could  still  make  themselves  heard.  And  in 
any  event,  this  transaction  has  no  bearing  on  the 
history  of  the  Canon,  for  virtual  unanimity  re- 
garding the  canonical  books  had  been  reached 
before   Theodoret's   episcopate   began. 

Only  one  obsessed  by  a  theory  that  has  become 
what  the  French  call  an  idee  fixe,  can  find  in  the 
patristic  literature  that  the  Canon  was  settled  by 
the  apostolical  authority  of  the  bishops.  And 
even  obsession  is  hardly  a  valid  excuse  for  abso- 
lute misrepresentation  of  the  patristic  evidence. 
Tertullian's  somewhat  arrogant,  "  I  am  the  heir 
of  the  apostles,"  has  called  forth  this  comment: 
"  Who  is  the  *  I '  ?  Manifestly  the  organization 
centering  in  the  office  of  the  bishops."  ^  Mani- 
festly it  is  nothing  of  the  sort.  Tertullian  is  not 
a  bishop,  and  is  not  at  all  concerned  to  uphold 
episcopal  authority.  He  is  arguing  with  heretics 
like  Marclon  who,  he  says,  have  no  right  to 
cite  the  Scriptures.     To  such,  any  orthodox  be- 

^  Ferris,  p.   176. 


THE   VOICE   OF   AUTHORITY  253 

liever,  like  himself,  may  rejoin,  "  This  is  my 
property.  .  .  I  am  the  heir  of  the  apostles."  ' 
All  the  fuss  about  this  ''  dictatorial  I  "  of  Ter- 
tullian  is  an  utter  perversion  of  his  language. 

Even  worse  is  the  use  made  of  a  passage  from 
Irenseus.  "  It  was  a  fiat  and  not  an  investigation 
that  gave  to  the  world  the  final  decision.  .  .  The 
church  that  issued  the  fiat  had  not  the  strength 
in  the  second  century  which  it  had  in  the  six- 
teenth, or  else  the  question  of  the  Canon  might 
have  been  settled  much  sooner.  But  the  com- 
mand went  forth.  '  And  therefore  it  was  said  to 
Daniel  the  prophet,  Shut  up  the  words  and  seal 
the  book  even  to  the  time  of  consummation,  until 
many  learn  and  knowledge  be  completed.'  "  ^  A 
reference  in  the  margin  to  "  Irenseus,  iv.  26.  i," 
as  well  as  the  context,  will  naturally  convey  to  the 
reader's  mind  the  idea  that  Irenaeus  quotes 
these  words  from  Daniel  as  a  command  to  the 
Church,  and  that  "  seal  the  book "  means  to 
Irenseus  "  close  the  Canon."  One  cannot  believe 
that  an  impression  so  utterly  at  variance  with 
fact  was  intentionally  conveyed.  For  what 
Irenseus  does  say,  as  anybody  will  discover  who 
verifies   the   reference,    is   this:    Christ   is   con- 

^De  Praescr.  Haer..   19.  "Ferris,  pp.   189,   190. 


254  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

tained  in  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  he  is  the 
treasure  hidden  in  the  field.  His  nature  was 
pointed  out  by  types  and  parables  and  could  not 
be  understood  in  advance  of  his  manifestation. 
"  And  therefore  it  was  said  to  Daniel,  Shut  up  the 
words,"  etc.  What  a  literary  offense  it  is  to  apply 
these  words  to  the  Canon,  whether  of  the  New 
Testament  or  the  Old,  needs  no  further  demon- 
stration. 

But  worse  still,  if  worse  be  possible,  is  the  in- 
terpretation that  has  been  put  on  "  a  luminous 
passage  "  of  Tertullian,  to  make  his  words  bear 
out  a  theory  of  a  Roman  origin  of  the  Canon. 
Tertullian  has  already  shown  in  his  treatise 
that  Christ  first  delivered  the  faith,  the  apostles 
spread  it,  and  it  has  descended  through  apostolic 
churches,  to  whoni  alone  the  Scriptures  belong. 
He  then  addresses  the  heretics  in  his  rhetorical 
fashion :  ^ 

Come  now,  you  who  would  indulge  a  better  curiosity, 
if  you  would  apply  it  to  the  business  of  your  own  sal- 
vation, run  over  the  apostolic  churches,  in  which  the 
very  thrones  of  the  apostles  are  still  pre-eminent  in 
their  places,  in  which  their  own  authentic  writings  are 
read,  uttering  the  voice  and  representing  the  face  of 
each  of  them  severally.     Achaia  is  very  near  you,   [in 

^De  Praescr.  Haer.,  36. 


THE   VOICE   OF   AUTHORITY  255 

which]  you  find  Corinth.     Since  you  are  not  far  from 
Macedonia,  you  have  Philippi,  you  have  the  Thessalo- 
nians.     Since  you  are  able  to  cross  to  Asia,  you  get 
Ephesus.     ((Since,  moreover,  you  are  close  upon  Italy, 
you    have    Rome,    from    which    there    comes    into    our 
hands    the    very    authority    [of    apostles    themselves]. 
How   happy   is   its   church,   on   which   apostles   poured 
forth  all  their  doctrine  along  with  their  blood!     Where 
Peter  endures  a  passion  like  his  Lord's!     Where  Paul 
wins  his  crown  in  a  death  like  John's!   Where  the  Apos- 
tle John  was  first  plunged,  unhurt,  into  boiling  oil,  and 
thence  remitted  to  his  island  exile!     See  what  she  has 
learned,    what    taught,    what    fellowship    has    had    with 
even    [our]    churches  in  Africa!     One  Lord   God  does 
she  acknowledge,  the  creator  of  the  universe,  and  Christ 
Jesus  [born]  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  the  Son  of  God,  the 
Creator;     and    the   resurrection    of   the   flesh;    the    law 
and   the  prophets   she  unites  in   one  volume  with  the 
writings   of  evangelists   and  apostles,   from   which   she 
drinks  in  her  faith.))     This  she  seals  with  the  water  [of 
baptism],  arrays  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  feeds  with  the 
Eucharist,  cheers  with  martyrdom,  and  against  such  a 
discipline    thus    maintained    she    admits    no    gainsayer. 
This  is  the  discipline  which   I  no  longer  say  foretold 
that  heresies  should  come,  but  from  which  they  pro- 
ceeded. 

Of  this  passage  only  the  sentences  enclosed  in 
double  parentheses  are  quoted  by  Doctor  Ferris, 
or  his  interpretation  could  not  have  been  main- 
tained for  an  instant.  Tertullian  is  speaking  of 
Rome,  as  the  context  shows,  merely  as  the  most 
honored  and  honorable  of  the  apostolic  churches, 
the  brightest  star  in  a  glorious  galaxy.    What  he 


256  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

says  of  Rome  is  obviously  true  of  all  the  other 
churches.  ''  The  law  and  the  prophets  she  unites 
in  one  volume  with  the  writings  of  evangelists 
and  apostles,  from  which  she  drinks  in  her  faith," 
is  no  more  said  of  Rome,  in  any  exclusive  sense, 
than  the  possession  of  the  sacraments  is  ascribed 
exclusively  to  her  in  the  next  sentence.  Indeed, 
Tertullian  had  done  his  best  to  prevent  any  such 
misunderstanding  of  his  meaning,  by  saying  ear- 
lier in  his  treatise,  "  Wherever  it  shall  be  manifest 
that  the  true  Christian  rule  and  faith  shall  be, 
there  will  likewise  be  the  true  Scriptures  and  ex- 
positions thereof  and  all  the  Christian  traditions." 
But  of  course  Tertullian  could  not  foresee  how 
anxiously  his  works  would  be  searched  one  day 
for  evidence  of  something  that  is  not  there. 

The  only  sound  conclusion  from  the  evidence 
accessible  is,  therefore,  that  down  to  the  final 
"  closing  "  of  the  Canon — which  means  only,  the 
time  when  it  was  definitely  decided  just  what 
books  should  be  received  as  constituting  the  New 
Testament — no  one  class  and  no  one  locality  de- 
cided anything.  The  clergy  as  a  whole  were 
doubtless  the  chief  agency  through  which  a  deci- 
sion was  reached.  However,  we  can  rather  be 
certain  of  this  on  general  principles,  because  the 


THE    VOICE    OF    AUTHORITY  257 

clergy  were  the  chief  agency  through  which  all 
ecclesiastical  questions  were  decided,  than  assured 
by  the  aid  of  any  specific  and  convincing  proofs. 
Like  the  growth  of  liturgy,  of  a  church  calendar, 
or  the  use  of  vestments,  the  Canon  must  be  viewed 
as  part  of  the  gradual,  orderly,  and  slow  develop- 
ment of  ecclesiastical  usages  that  we  can  trace 
more  or  less  clearly  through  the  first  five  cen- 
turies. The  clergy  as  a  whole,  rather  than  the 
bishops  alone,  were  influential  in  all  these  things. 
But  because  we  read  little  of  them,  we  should 
make  a  great  mistake  to  assume  hastily  that  the 
laymen,  the  great  silent  host  of  believers,  had  no 
influence  in  these  matters.  By  their  approval  or 
disapproval,  sometimes  expressed  with  tumult 
and  violence,  they  played  their  part  in  what  was 
done.  One  has  only  to  read  the  life  of  Chrysos- 
tom  to  learn  that  the  laity  could  make  themselves 
felt  on  occasion,  and  that  a  bishop  who  attempted 
to  override  their  will,  even  when  he  was  in  the 
right,  was  courting  disaster.  In  the  matter  of 
the  Canon,  the  Christian  believers  of  all  ranks 
were  led,  not  driven — of  that  we  may  be  quite 
certain. 

When   the   voice   of  authority   is  first  heard 
speaking  plainly  in  the  Church,  it  is  not  an  episco- 


258  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

pal  voice,  but  the  voice  of  synods,  in  v^hich  the 
lower  clergy  also  were  represented.  In  spite 
of  Tertullian's  apparent  assertion  to  the  contrary, 
we  have  no  record  of  a  synod  that  considered  the 
question  of  the  Canon,  directly  or  indirectly,  be- 
_   _  fore  the  synod  of  Laodicea,  held  in 

303/  ihat  this  body  took  some 
action  regarding  the  Canon  is  certain,  but  its  pre- 
cise decision  is  unknown  to  us,  as  the  extant  text 
of  canon  ^  fifty-nine  is  admitted  by  most  scholars 
to  be  in  part  spurious.  The  canon  begins,^  ''  Let 
no  private  psalms  ^  be  read  in  the  church,  nor 
uncanonized  books,  but  only  the  canonical  [books] 
of  the  New  and  Old  Testament."    The  list  then 

*  Few  testimonies  regarding  these  early  councils  or  synods  can 
be  gleaned  from  the  Fathers.  In  addition  to  the  one  already  quoted 
from  Tertullian,  he  says  again:  "Besides,  throughout  the  provinces 
of  Greece  there  are  held  in  definite  localities  those  councils  gathered 
out  of  the  catholic  churches,  by  whose  means  not  only  all  the 
deeper  questions  are  handled  for  the  common  benefit,  but  the 
actual  representation  of  the  whole  Christian  name  is  celebrated  with 
great  veneration."  De  Jej'un.,  13.  The  context  shows  that  these 
synods  were  for  the  preservation  of  orthodoxy,  chiefly.  Eusebius 
testifies  to  the  same  effect:  "  For  the  faithful  in  Asia  met  often 
in  many  places  throughout  Asia  to  consider  this  matter,  and  ex- 
amined the  novel  utterances  and  pronounced  them  profane,  and  thus 
these  persons  [Montanists]  were  expelled  from  the  Church  and 
debarred  from  communication."     H.   E.,  v.    16.    10. 

2  Here  we  have  "  canon  "  used  in  the  common  ecclesiastical  sense 
of  a  rule  enacted  by  a  synod  or  council,  for  the  guidance  of  all 
in  matters  of  discipline  and  administration. 

^  Appendix  IV. 

*  Private  psalms  probably  means  psalms  composed  by  "  private " 
(1.  e.,  uninspired)  persons.     Later  the  use  of  hymns  was  authorized. 


THE   VOICE    OF   AUTHORITY  259 

follows,  first  of  the  Old  Testament  books,  then 
of  the  New — the  latter  corresponding  to  our 
present  Canon,  with  the  omission  of  the  Apoca- 
lypse. Both  of  these  catalogues  are  omitted  alto- 
gether in  some  Greek  MSS  of  the  canons,  and 
are  written  in  a  different  hand,  often  in  different 
colored  ink,  from  the  canon  above  quoted.  They 
are  also  omitted  in  most  of  the  MS  versions  of 
the  canons,  as  the  Latin  and  Syriac.  It  is  con- 
siderations like  these  that  make  scholars  pro- 
nounce the  lists  to  be  of  more  than  doubtful 
authenticity. 

But,  in  any  case,  this  is  perfectly  clear:  the 
synod  of  Laodicea  attempted  no  new  legislation. 
The  canon  adopted  recognizes  the  fact  that  there 
is  already  in  existence  a  collection  of  books,  gen- 
erally recognized  as  fitting  to  be  read  in  the  pub- 
lic worship  of  the  churches,  wdiich  are  known  as 
the  "  canonized  "  or  "  canonical  "  books.  If  the 
catalogues  are  genuine,  they  simply  give  the 
names  of  these  books,  already  received  as  au- 
thoritative in  the  churches  represented  in  this 
synod.  This  first  word  of  the  voice  of  authority, 
therefore,  is  no  more  than  an  official  recognition 
of  what  is  already  a  well-established  ecclesiastical 
usage.     We  could  not  reasonably  have  expected 


260  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

anything  else.     The  bishops  and  clergy  in  council 

will  of  course  say  what  the  bishops  and  clergy 

have    for   years    been    saying    in    their    several 

churches. 

The  second  time  that  we  hear  the  voice  of 

authority,  it  comes  from  Athanasius,  the  great 

bishop    of    Alexandria,    the    fore,- 
B,  2).  367  ,      ,      .  J    u .  , 

most    theologian    and    bishop    tne 

fourth  century  produced — and  that  was  the 
century  also  of  the  two  Gregories  (of  Nazianzen 
and  Nyssa)  and  of  Basil  and  of  Chrysostom. 
Athanasius  was  accustomed  to  send  an  encycli- 
cal letter  each  year  shortly  before  Easter  to  the 
churches  subject  to  him,  as  not  only  bishop  but 
also  as  metropolitan.  These  became  known  as 
his  Festal  Letters,  and  they  contain  counsel,  com- 
mand, exhortation,  regarding  the  proper  celebra- 
tion of  Easter.  In  one  of  the  letters  of  the 
series,^  for  the  year  367,  he  had  occasion  to  warn 
his  people  against  certain  "  fabricated  "  books, 
by  which  they  were  liable  to  be  led  astray.  It 
seems  good  to  him,  therefore,  he  says  to  them, 
to  set  before  them  "  the  books  included  in  the 
Canon,  and  handed  down  and  accredited  as 
divine."     Thereupon  follows  his  catalogue,  first 

*  Appendix  V. 


THE   VOICE   OF   AUTHORITY  261 

of  the  Old  Testament,  then  of  the  New.  The 
latter  is  the  first  formal  list,  from  any  source,  that 
exactly  agrees  with  our  New  Testament,  neither 
admitting  any  book  not  found  there,  nor  rejecting 
(or  even  expressing  any  doubts  concerning)  any 
book  that  is  found  there.  When  we  are  told  that 
our  New  Testament  Canon  comes  to  us  from 
Rome,  and  that  it  would  have  been  a  very  dif- 
ferent collection  if  it  had  proceeded  from  Alex- 
andria, let  us  recall  to  mind  that  it  is  this  re- 
nowned bishop  of  Alexandria  who  gives  us  the 
first  list  of  the  canonical  books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment that  is  identical  with  those  that  we  possess 
to-day. 

One  other  voice  of  authority  we  hear  from  the 
fourth  century.  The  third  provincial  council,  or 
synod,  of  Carthage  was  held  in  the  year  397.  The 
great  theologian  Augustine  was  present  and  took 
part  in  its  deliberations.  This  synod  also  adopted 
a  canon  regarding  the  Scriptures :  ^  "  It  was  also 
determined  that  besides  the  canonical  Scriptures 
nothing  be  read  in  the  Church  under  the  title  of 
divine  Scriptures.  The  canonical  Scriptures  are 
these."  Then  follows  the  catalogue  of  both  Old 
and  New  Testaments,  the  latter  precisely  agree- 

1  Appendix  X. 


262  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

ing  with  that  of  Athanasius  and  our  own.  It 
will  be  seen,  however,  as  at  Laodicea,  there  is  no 
case  here  of  a  dispute  as  to  what  the  Canon  should 
be,  followed  by  an  authoritative  decision.     The 

council  tells  us  plainly  that  there 

B,  2).  397     .  .        ,  \  A  r  t5   ^ 

IS  an  already  accepted  Canon.   But, 

as  we  have  previously  learned  from  numerous 
sources,  other  books  were  also  read  in  the 
churches,  and  this  canon  is  intended  to  put  a  stop 
to  that  practice  and  confine  the  public  reading 
exclusively  to  the  canonical  books.  We  learn, 
however,  from  Rufinus,  that  this  object  was  not 
attained,  for  even  in  the  next  century  other 
books  were  publicly  read,  though  not  as  equal 
to  the  canonical  books.^ 

This  canon  of  Carthage  has  not  only  ecclesiasti- 
cal but  historical  authority.  It  is  an  unimpeach- 
able witness  to  the  fact  that  the  formation  of  the 
Canon  is  complete,  and  that  it  has  been  formed 
by  the  Christian  churches.  The  canon  is  avowed- 
ly based  on  the  everywhere  accepted  Christian 
tradition  concerning  these  books,  and  rests  on 
no  other  sort  of  authority  than  universal  tradi- 
tion. It  has  ecclesiastical  authority,  because, 
although  this  is  in  itself  the  voice  of  a  provincial 

1  Appendix  XIIo 


THE   VOICE   OF   AUTHORITY  263 

synod  only,  it  was  sent  to  the  bishop  of  Rome  for 
his  concurrence.  "  Let  this  be  made  known  also 
to  our  brother  and  fellow-priest  Boniface,"  the 
canon  continues,  ''  for  the  purpose  of  confirming 
that  canon,  because  we  have  received  from  our 
fathers  that  those  books  must  be  read  in  the 
Church."  That  such  confirmation  was  given 
there  is  no  reason  to  doubt,  though  no  record  has 
been  preserved  of  it;  and  by  such  approval  the 
voice  of  this  synod  became  of  nearly  as  much 
moral  weight — throughout  the  churches  of  the 
West,  at  least — as  if  it  were  the  decision  of  an 
ecumenical  council. 

This  remained  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  re- 
garding the  Canon  down  to  the  Reformation  and 
the  Council  of  Trent.  Whenever  the  voice  of 
authority  spoke  again,  it  was  merely  to  confirm 
what  was  said  at  Carthage.  No  more  authorita- 
tive ecclesiastical  body  uttered  its  voice  before 
the  Council  of  Trent,  where  for  the  first  time  a 
council  professing  to  be  ecumenical,  and  in  fact 
representing  the  entire  Catholic  Church  of  the 
West,  set  forth  an  ofBcial  and  final  decision  re- 
garding the  Canon.  It  is  necessary,  however,  to 
take  some  account  of  a  statement  somewhat 
widely   diffused,   though   not  in  books   of   real 


264  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

authority,  that  an  eadier  ecumenical  council  did 
define  the  Canon — namely,  the  council  held  in 
Constantinople  in  692,  and  known  by  various 
titles,  the  "  Trullan,"  the  ''  Quinsext."  It  is  true 
that  this  gathering  aspired  to  be  the  Seventh 
Ecumenical  Council,  and  was  accepted  as  such 
in  the  East,  but  in  the  West  its  authority  was  re- 
jected, and  the  second  council  of  Nice  (787)  is 
there  reckoned  as  the  Seventh  Ecumenical.  It 
is  evident  that  the  canons  of  such  an  ecclesiastical 
body  cannot  be  fairly  called  ecumenical,  and  that 
they  are  as  devoid  of  historical  authority  as  of 
moral  weight. 

But  waiving  this  point,  this  council  said  noth- 
ing explicitly  about  the  Canon  of  Scripture.  Its 
action  on  that  subject  is  wholly  inferential:  it 
did,  in  canon  11  of  its  acts,  ratify  the  canons 
adopted  by  a  number  of  provincial  synods  named, 
including  that  of  Carthage.^  Whence,  it  might 
be  concluded,  this  council  gave  the  seal  of  its  ap- 
proval to  what  that  synod  enacted  about  the 
Canon  of  Scripture.  But  if  the  council  did  this, 
it  did  a  great  deal  more — a  great  deal  too  much, 
indeed — for  it  also  confirmed  the  Canon  of  Lao- 
dicea,  and  this  (if  genuine)  does  not  agree  with 

1  Appendix  XVI. 


THE   VOICE   OF   AUTHORITY  265 

the  Canon  of  Carthage.  But  worse  yet,  the 
Trullan  canon  confirms  the  so-called  Apostolic 
Canons,  and  the  ''  canons  "  or  de- 
cretal letters  of  Athanasius,  Am-  ^*  ^*  ^^^ 
philochius,  and  Gregory  Theologus  (Nazianzen)  ; 
and  each  of  these  authorities  gives  a  list  of 
canonical  Scriptures  that  do  not  agree  with  each 
other.  Here  we  have  five  New  Testament  Canons 
inferentially  confirmed,  of  which  only  that  of 
Athanasius  agrees  with  the  Canon  of  Carthage. 
The  Trullan  council,  instead  of  deciding  anything 
about  the  New  Testament  Canon,  only  threw  the 
whole  matter  into  inextricable  confusion.^ 

There  are  several  papal  utterances  on  the  sub- 
ject of  the  Canon  that  would  be  of  value,  as 
tending  to  settle  the  question  for  the  West,  if 
we  could  be  certain,  in  the  first  place,  of  their 
genuineness,  and  secondly  whether  they  come 
within  the  scope  of  the  Vatican  definition  of  in- 
fallibility. The  earliest  is  a  letter, 
or  decretal,  purporting  to  have  ^*  ^*  "^^^ 
been  written  by  Innocent  I  about  the  year  405, 
and  gives  a  list  of  canonical  books  corresponding 

1  See  documents  IV- VIII  in  the  Appendix.  The  Apostolic  Canons 
omit  the  Apocalypse  and  add  the  two  letters  of  Clement;  Am- 
philochius  is  doubtful  of  more  than  three  catholic  Epistles  and  re- 
jects the  Apocalypse;    Gregory  rejects  the  Apocalypse. 


266  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

to  the  Canon  of  Carthage,  with  this  additional 
admonition:  that  all  other  books  circulating 
under  the  names  of  apostles,  are  to  be  not  only- 
repudiated  but  condemned.  But  this  is  appar- 
ently not  instruction  from  the  chair  of  Peter  in 
which  the  pope  speaks  as  pastor  and  teacher  of 
the  whole  Church,  and  consequently  it  can  claim 
no  infallible  character.  Such  a  decision  becomes 
binding  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  as  a 
matter  of  discipline,  but  is  not  an  article  of  faith. 
And,  as  has  been  intimated,  scholars  regard  the 
document  as  of  more  than  doubtful  authenticity. 
Another  decretal  is  attributed  to  Pope  Gela- 
sius  and  contains  the  same  list.     It  is  supposed 

to  have  been  prepared  a  little  be- 
B,  2).  496 

fore  the  year  500,  but  has  suffered 

various  alterations,  so  that  it  is  impossible  to  say 
precisely  what  was  its  original  form.  In  its  pres- 
ent state  it  may  be  as  late  as  the  tenth  century. 
It  can  be  taken,  therefore,  only  to  represent  the 
continuance  during  the  Middle  Ages  of  that 
tradition  of  the  Canon  established  by  the  synod  of 
Carthage.  This  decretal  is  subject  to  the  same 
interpretation,  as  to  its  infallible  authority,  as  that 
of  Innocent. 

A  third  papal  utterance,  of  undoubted  authen- 


THE    VOICE    OF    AUTHORITY  267 

ticity,  is  the  bull  of  Eugene  IV,  addressed  in  1441 
to  the  Council  of  Florence,  in  which  he  defines 

the    belief    of    the    holy    Roman 

.         B.  2).  1441 
Church  with  regard  to  the  Scrip- 
tures.    This  document  is  open  to  the  same  ques- 
tion as  to  its  infallible  character,  since  it  is  not 
addressed  to  the  whole  church.^ 

While,  therefore,  it  may  be  said  with  confi- 
dence that  the  Church  of  the  West  continued  from 
the  fifth  century  to  receive  as  the  Scriptures  of 
the  New  Testament  the  Canon  approved  at  Car- 
thage, it  may  be  said  with  equal  confidence  that 
this  continuance  was  based  on  ecclesiastical  usage 
and  not  on  ecclesiastical  authority.  The  same 
influences  that  produced  the  Canon  maintained 
it.  The  whole  Church  had  on  trial  for  three 
centuries  the  writings  that  any  Christian  had 
esteemed  to  be  Scripture,  as  having  claims  either 
from  supposed  apostolic  authorship,  or  by  virtue 
of  their  edificatory  value,  to  be  received  as  of 
divine  origin  and  to  be  used  in  the  worship  of 
God  and  the  instruction  of  the  people.  Grad- 
ually, by  the  process  of  full  proof  of  all,  and  the 
cautious  acceptance  of  some  and  the  exclusion 
of  others,  the  entire  Church,  East  and  West,  was 

1  For  the  last  three  documents  in  full,  see  Appendix. 


268  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

brought  to  complete  and  peaceful  unanimity — 
almost  the  one  subject  upon  which  the  East  and 
West  did  fully  agree  in  the  long  history  of  Chris- 
tianity. That  such  was  the  fact  was  practically 
confessed  by  the  Council  of  Trent  in  its  action 
in  the  matter,  for,  if  the  question  of  the  Canon 
had  been  authoritatively  decided 
before,  there  would  have  been  no 
necessity  for  a  decree  on  that  subject.  So  far 
as  the  New  Testament  was  concerned,  the  decree 
of  Trent  established  as  an  article  of  faith  what 
had  then  been  the  usage  of  the  church  for  a 
thousand  years.  Henceforth  no  member  of  the 
Roman  Church  could  question  the  canonicity  of 
any  book  of  our  New  Testament  without  incur- 
ring anathema. 

To  prevent  any  possible  misapprehension,  it 
should  perhaps  be  added  that  there  was  no  issue 
between  the  Reformers  and  the  Catholics  regard- 
ing the  New  Testament  Canon.  A  few  scholars 
on  either  side  had  shown  a  disposition  to  revive 
the  early  doubts  about  James  and  Second  Peter 
and  the  Apocalypse,  but  not  one  proposed  to  drop 
a  book  from  the  Canon.  There  was  therefore  no 
objection  to  the  Trent  decree  on  the  New  Testa- 
ment Canon,  save  the  objection  that  any  scholar 


THE    VOICE    OF    AUTHORITY  269 

feels  to  having  questions  of  historical  fact  settled 
by  the  vote  of  ecclesiastics,  whose  ignorance  in 
too  many  cases  makes  their  opinion  on  the  issues 
involved  absolutely  worthless.  The  erection  of 
what  ought  always  to  remain  an  opinion,  however 
firmly  held,  into  an  article  of  faith  is  also  objec- 
tionable in  itself. 

The  issue  that  Protestantism  did  raise  with  the 
Roman  Church  about  the  Canon  concerned  what 
the  Protestants  have  always  called  the  Old  Testa- 
ment Apocrypha — books  written  by  Jew^s,  before 
the  time  of  Christ,  but  never  clearly  accepted  as 
canonical  by  the  Jews,  nor  in  the  early  church. 
Many  of  these  were  quoted  by  the  early  Fathers 
as  Scripture,  and  they  were  included  in  the  Old 
Testament  catalogue  by  the  synod  of  Carthage, 
included  in  the  Vulgate  by  Jerome,  approved  by 
Augustine,  and  had  been  regarded  as  Scripture 
for  a  thousand  years  before  the  Reformation  be- 
gan. To  discuss  the  reasons  why  Protestants 
declined  to  accept  these  Apocrypha,  and  why  the 
Council  of  Trent  affirmed  them  to  be  canonical, 
with  an  anathema  upon  all  who  should  reject 
them,  is  a  matter  entirely  without  the  scope  of 
this  inquiry.  It  is  only  noticed  at  all  to  make 
perfectly  clear  the  nature  of  the  exact  issue  re- 


2/0  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

garding  the  Canon  in  the  sixteenth  century. 
Since  the  fifth  century,  the  whole  Christian  world, 
with  practical  unanimity,  Greek,  Roman,  and 
Protestant,  has  accepted  the  same  Canon  of  the 
New  Testament  and  firmly  holds  it  to-day. 

Most  Protestant  creeds  and  Confessions  have 
not  felt  it  necessary  to  insert  a  precise  definition 
of  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament.  Of  the 
Confessions  appearing  before  the  Westminster, 
only  two,  composed  in  the  French  language — the 
Gallican  (1559)  and  the  Belgic  (1561) — con- 
tain a  list  of  the  canonical  books.  Though  nearly 
all  insist  upon  the  supremacy  of  Scripture,  they 
take  it  for  granted  that  all  are  agreed  as  to  what 
constitutes  Scripture;  and,  as  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment, that  assumption  was  undoubtedly  true  and 
rendered  a  catalogue  a  superfluity.  Neverthe- 
less, the  Westminster  Confession  (1647),  '^vith 
its  minute  precision  of  statement,  took  nothing 
for  granted,  but  gave  the  usual  list  of  received 
books.  Having  heard  this,  we  have  listened  to 
the  last  word  spoken  by  the  voice  of  authority. 


IX 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  MSS  AND 
VERSIONS 


IX 


WE  have  now  to  consider  a  class  of  evi- 
dence that  is  valuable  for  the  illustra- 
tion and  confirmation  that  it  yields  to  the 
results  already  reached  in  our  inquiry.  A  few 
specially  significant  facts  have  already  been  cited 
from  this  kind  of  evidence,  but  it  has  seemed 
more  likely  to  produce  its  full  effect,  and  less 
likely  to  lead  to  mental  confusion,  if  examined  in 
the  mass  than  if  it  had  been  given  in  detail  as 
we  proceeded.  This  is  the  indirect  and  unde- 
signed evidence  to  the  history  of  the  Canon  given 
by  the  Greek  MSS  of  the  New  Testament  and 
the  early  versions  made  in  the  various  languages 
in  use  in  the  Roman  empire. 

Constantine,  when  he  was  not  performing  the 
functions  of  a  heathen  Pontifex  Maximus,  de- 
lighted to  pose  as  a  Christian  emperor.  Diocle- 
tian, his  predecessor,  had  covered  himself  and 
his  reign  with  infamy  by  persecution  of  the  Chris- 
tians; Constantine  showed  them  every  favor. 
Diocletian  had  endeavored  to  destroy  their  sa- 
cred books;  Constantine  bethought  him  that  a 
s  273 


274  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

present  of  such  books  to  the  churches  would  be 
a  most  acceptable  gift.  Accordingly,  about  the 
year  331,  he  wrote  to  Eusebius  the  historian, 
requesting  that  the  bishop  have  prepared  for  him 
"  fifty  copies  {aa)[idzca)  of  the  Holy  Scriptures." 
Then  follows  an  ambiguous  clause:  (^v  {idXcara 
rrjD  rkncax^oTjV  xai  rrjv  xpr^atv  rco  tyj^  ixxXr^aca^  Xoyoj 
dvajxaiav  ehou  pyuwaxei^ — which  may  be  ren- 
dered, "  the  preparation  and  use  of  which  you 
know  to  be  most  useful  for  the  instruction  of  the 
Church,"  or,  "  the  preparation  and  use  of  which 
you  know  to  be  most  useful  in  the  judgment  of 
the  Church."  The  Greek  will  bear  either  render- 
ing equally  well,  and  either  rendering  agrees 
equally  with  the  context,  so  that  it  is  impossible 
to  decide  which  the  emperor  meant.  If  we  knew 
that  he  meant  the  sense  given  by  the  second  ren- 
dering, the  making  of  these  copies  would  have  a 
most  important  bearing  on  the  history  of  the 
Canon.  By  following  such  an  injunction  Euse- 
bius would  have  done  much  to  fix  the  Canon,  for 
of  course  the  contents  of  the  MSS  would  be  per- 
petuated in  copies  scattered  throughout  the  East. 
In  any  case,  the  making  of  these  fifty  copies 
and  their  presentation  to  as  many  different 
churches  must  have  had  a  great  effect;    but  we 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE    MSS   AND   VERSIONS  275 

can  only  guess  what  sort  of  effect,  since  Eusebius 
omits  to  tell  us  a  word  about  the  contents  of 
these  MSS,  though  he  adds  some  other  details 
that  are  more  amusing  than  instructive.  The 
emperor  authorized  the  use  of  two  public  car- 
riages for  the  conveyance  to  him  of  these  MSS, 
which  shows  that  they  must  have  been  bulky ;  and 
asks  Eusebius  to  send  them  in  care  of  one  of  his 
deacons,  "  who  on  his  arrival  here  shall  experi- 
ence my  liberality."  The  copies  were  duly  made 
and  sent  to  the  emperor  in  "  magnificently  and 
elaborately  bound  volumes  of  a  threefold  and 
fourfold  form."  What  Eusebius  meant  by  this 
description  still  puzzles  the  learned.  Some  think 
that  this  describes  the  parchment  leaves,  arranged 
according  to  the  custom  of  the  time  in  quar- 
ternions  and  ternions,  that  is,  in  sets  or  quires  of 
three  or  four  double  sheets.  Others  think  that 
this  refers  to  the  number  of  columns  of  writing 
on  a  page,  some  MSS  of  this  period  having 
three  and  others  four.  If  we  knew  what  Euse- 
bius meant  here,  and  what  the  emperor  meant 
by  his  directions,  we  should  be  much  aided  in 
the  solution  of  several  problems  that  are  at 
present  insoluble. 

For  not  a  few  scholars  believe,  though  they 


2'j(>  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

cannot  prove,  that  we  have  now  in  our  posses- 
sion at  least  one  of  these  very  copies  made  by 
Eusebius  under  the  direction  of  Constantine. 
This  is  the  Codex  Sinaiticus,  the  oldest  complete 
MS  of  the  New  Testament.  The  story  of  its 
discovery  is  one  of  the  most  romantic  tales  of 
modern  times  and  will  bear  repeating.  In  1844 
Constantine  Tischendorf,  then  a  privatdocent  in 
the  University  of  Leipzig,  made  a  visit  to  the 
monastery  of  St.  Catherine,  at  Mount  Sinai, 
where  he  had  heard  that  there  was  a  library  con- 
taining some  interesting  old  manuscripts.  He 
found  one  day  in  a  waste-basket  forty-three  leaves 
of  an  old  MS,  and  at  his  earnest  request  the 
monks  gave  them  to  him,  instead  of  lighting  fires 
with  them  as  they  had  intended.  They  proved 
to  contain  a  portion  of  the  Septuagint  version  of 
the  Old  Testament.  He  made  every  effort  to 
obtain  the  remainder  of  the  MS,  but  the  monks 
became  suspicious  and  denied  that  there  were 
any  more  leaves.  At  a  subsequent  visit,  in  1853, 
he  was  unsuccessful  in  his  effort  to  discover  more, 
though  he  firmly  believed  more  to  be  in  existence. 
At  a  third  visit,  in  1859,  he  was  more  fortunate, 
and  discovered  the  whole  of  the  New  Testament, 
as  well  as  the  remainder  of  the  Septuagint. 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE    MSS   AND    VERSIONS  2/7 

Tischendorf  has  eloquently  described  his  sur- 
prise and  joy  when  he  realized  the  character 
and  great  value  of  his  discovery;  and  he  spent 
the  whole  night  in  making  a  copy  of  the  Epistle 
of  Barnabas,  of  which,  till  then,  the  Greek  origi- 
nal had  been  unknown.  His  attempt  to  make  a 
copy  of  the  New  Testament  portion  for  publica- 
tion was  thwarted  by  the  ignorance  and  suspi- 
cion of  the  monks,  and  nearly  eight  months  were 
consumed  in  negotiations  before  they  would  con- 
sent to  part  with  their  treasure.  Finally,  how- 
ever, it  was  given  to  him  to  be  taken  to  Leipzig 
and  published,  after  which  it  was  to  be  presented 
to  the  emperor  of  Russia  in  the  name  of  the 
monks.  The  emperor  accepted  the  "  present," 
but,  understanding  well  the  Oriental  custom  of 
gift-making,  sent  them  in  return  a  ''  present " 
equivalent  to  six  thousand  seven  hundred  and 
fifty  dollars  of  our  money.  The  transaction  bears 
a  suspicious  resemblance  to  a  sale  of  the  MS 
for  a  good  round  price;  but,  though  the  above 
facts  are  matters  of  official  record,  the  monks 
now  say  that  it  was  stolen  from  them.  The  MS 
is  one  of  the  chief  treasures  of  the  imperial  li- 
brary at  St.  Petersburg,  and  by  the  liberality  of 
the  Russian  government  a  facsimile  edition  has 


2^%  OUR    NEW    TESTAMEInT 

been  published  that  puts  the  text  at  the  disposal 
of  all  Christian  scholars. 

This  MS  is  thirteen  and  one-half  inches  in 
length  by  fourteen  and  seven-eighths  inches  high, 
and  is  beautifully  written  in  the  uncial  hand  of 
the  fourth  century  (i.  e.,  in  square  capital  let- 
ters), four  columns  to  a  page,  of  forty-nine  lines 
to  the  column.  Besides  the  entire  New  Testa- 
ment, it  contains  the  Epistle  of 
Barnabas  and  a  large  part  of  the 
Shepherd.  Both  come  after  the  Canon,  and 
though  evidently  intended  to  be  read  in  the 
churches,  were  as  evidently  considered  not  to 
be  in  the  same  class  with  the  preceding  books. 
The  order  of  the  canonical  books  is  not  only 
curious  in  itself,  but  throws  an  interesting  side- 
light on  the  question  of  canonicity.  First,  of 
course,  come  the  four  Gospels;  next,  the  Epistles 
of  Paul,  with  Hebrews  following  Second  Thessa- 
lonians;  then  the  Acts,  the  Cathohc  Epistles,  and 
the  Revelation.  As  the  Catholic  Epistles  and 
Revelation  were  precisely  the  last  part  of  the 
Canon  to  be  fully  accepted,  there  was  a  manifest 
propriety  in  their  being  placed  last  of  all. 

We  cannot,  of  course,  be  certain  that  this  is 
one  of  the  fifty  MSS  prepared  under  the  direc- 


TESTIMONY    OF   THE    MSS   AND   VERSIONS  279 

tion  of  Eusebius,  but  the  characters  in  which  it 
is  written  prove  that  it  is  a  MS  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tury, and  it  may  well  have  been  one  of  these  very 
copies.  One  strong  confirmation  of  this  view  is 
this :  there  cannot  have  been  made  in  the  fourth 
century  a  large  number  of  MSS  so  extensive 
and  so  costly  as  this  was,  aside  from  the  copies 
prepared  under  the  imperial  patronage  and  at 
imperial  expense.  Being  of  the  fourth  century, 
the  indirect  testimony  of  the  MS  is  most  interest- 
ing and  significant.  It  contains  all  the  books  that 
Eusebius  catalogues  as  generally  received  in  his 
day,  including  those  still  disputed  by  a  minority, 
the  Antilegomena.  It  also  contains  two  of  the 
extra-canonical  books  that  Eusebius  names  as 
being  often  read  in  the  churches  and  believed 
by  some  to  be  Scripture,  though  not  fully  canoni- 
cal. On  the  whole,  then,  the  Sinaitic  Canon  is 
what  we  should  have  a  right  to  expect,  if  it  were 
produced  under  the  direction  of  Eusebius. 

We  may  still  have  in  existence  a  second  of 
these  Eusebian  MSS— at  least  we  have  a  second 
that  belongs  to  this  age— the  famous  Codex  Vati- 
canus,  which  was  placed  in  the  great  library  of 
the  Vatican  by  Pope  Nicholas  V,  in  1448.  Noth- 
ing is  positively  known  of  the  former  history  of 


28o  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

the  MS,  but  several  circumstances  make  it  ex- 
tremely probable  that  it  was  brought  from  the 
East  to  Italy  by  the  learned  Greek,  Bessarion, 
who  bore  so  large  a  part  in  the  Italian  Renais- 
sance, and  became  a  cardinal  of  the  Roman 
Church.  It  is  a  quarto,  arranged  in  quires  of  five 
double  sheets,  which  does  not  correspond  to  either 
form  described  by  Eusebius,  if  he  means  to  de- 
scribe this  form.  On  the  other  hand,  it  has 
three  columns  usually  of  forty-two  lines  each, 
which  corresponds  to  one  sort  of  MS  described 
by  Eusebius,  if  his  puzzling  words  describe  the 
manner  of  writing.  It  is  beautifully  written  on 
elegant  vellum,  and  no  ancient  MS  exceeds  it  in 
beauty.  It  was  long  most  jealously  guarded  from 
the  eyes  of  scholars,  even  Tischendorf  being  per- 
mitted in  1843  to  examine  it  no  more  than  three 
hours  each  of  two  days.  In  1866  he  was  per- 
mitted somewhat  more  license,  but  not  enough 
to  prepare  a  critical  edition.  An  official  edition, 
published  under  the  nominal  authority  of  Car- 
dinal Mai,  in  1857,  proved  inaccurate  and  un- 
scholarly  in  every  particular.  This  was  at  length 
followed  in  1889  by  a  photographic  facsimile, 
which  has  made  this  priceless  treasure  the  com- 
mon property  of  all  biblical  scholars. 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE    MSS   AND   VERSIONS  28 1 

The  Vatican  MS  undoubtedly  contained  orig- 
inally the  entire  Bible  in  Greek,  of  which  nearly 
all  the  Old  Testament  is  still  preserved  (it  be- 
gins with  Gen.  46  :  28,  and  lacks  Ps.  105-137 
and  both  Maccabees),  but  the  New 
Testament  breaks  off  abruptly  at 
Heb.  9  :  14.  The  rest  of  the  New  Testament  has 
been  supplied  from  another  MS  owned  by  Cardi- 
nal Bessarion.  These  facts  make  the  testimony  of 
this  very  ancient  MS  less  decisive  for  our  purpose 
than  could  be  desired.  It  is,  of  course,  interesting 
to  know  that  the  entire  seven  Catholic  Epistles  are 
included,  following  the  Acts.  As  Hebrews  follows 
Second  Thessalonians  in  this  MS,  as  in  the 
Sinaitic,  we  may  safely  conclude  that  all  of  the 
other  Pauline  Epistles  were  contained  in  it.  What 
we  cannot  know,  and  what  we  would  very  much 
like  to  know  is,  whether  the  Apocalypse  was 
originally  a  part  of  it,  and  also  if  it  had  in  addi- 
tion any  of  the  "  ecclesiastical  books  "  not  reck- 
oned as  belonging  to  the  Canon ;  and,  if  so,  which  ? 
We  must  be  content,  however,  with  knowing  that, 
so  far  as  its  testimony  goes,  it  is  exactly  that  of 
the  Codex  Sinaiticus,  and  that  in  all  probability 
the  two  agreed  concerning  the  entire  Canon. 

The  Codex  Alexandrinus,  the  greatest  single 


282  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

literary  treasure  of  the  British  Museum,  where 

any  visitor  may  see  it  in  the  manuscript  room, 

has  belonged  to  that  institution  since  1753.     It 

was  a  gift  from  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople 

to  Charles  I,  in  1628,  and  seems  to  have  been  in 

the  possession  of  the  Patriarchate  since  814,  when 

it  was  brousrht  from  Alexandria. 
n.  1S>.  400  (7)  ^,  .         .  ."^         . .       .     . 

Of  its   origm  nothnig  is   known, 

and  there  are  few  grounds  for  conjecture.  The 
character  of  the  writing  is  somewhat  later  than 
that  of  the  Sinaitic  and  Vatican  MSS,  and  fixes 
its  probable  date  at  about  the  beginning  of  the 
fifth  century.  It  is  a  quarto,  each  page  contain- 
ing two  columns  of  about  fifty  lines  each,  and 
large  capital  letters  are  found  at  the  beginning  of 
books  and  sections — a  feature  that  of  itself  proves 
the  date  to  be  later  than  either  of  the  other  great 
uncials,  neither  of  which  contain  such  capital  let- 
ters. With  the  exception  of  some  lost  leaves,  this 
Codex  contains  the  entire  New  Testament  in 
the  same  order  as  that  of  the  Sinaitic  and  Vati- 
can MSS,  and  is  followed  by  the  two  Epistles  of 
Clement,  the  second  incomplete. 

This  fact,  like  the  similar  case  of  the  Codex 
Sinaiticus,  affords  an  opportunity  for  a  difference 
of  interpretation,  according  to  the  temperament 


TESTIMONY    OF   THE    MSS   AND   VERSIONS  283 

of  the  interpreter.  By  some  it  will  be  inferred 
that  the  placing  of  these  documents  in  a  MS 
evidently  intended  for  liturgical  use,  indicates  an 
intention  to  recognize  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas, 
the  Shepherd,  and  the  two  letters  of  Clement  as 
having  the  authority  of  Scripture.  To  others  it 
will  seem  equally  clear  that  the  careful  placing  of 
these  documents  in  each  case  after  the  books  that 
Eusebius  tells  us  were  canonical  in  his  day,  and 
that  were  later  recognized  by  Athanasius  and 
Cyril,  shows  that  though  they  might  be  read  in 
the  churches  as  edifying  books,  they  were  not 
esteemed  Scripture  in  the  full  sense. 

One  of  the  most  interesting  of  the  ancient  MSS 
is  the  Codex  Ephraemi,  which  is  known  as  a  pal- 
impsest, because  the  original  Greek  text  was  par- 
tially scoured  off  with  pumice  to  make  place  for 
some  writings  of  St.  Ephraem,  one  of  the  most 
famous  Fathers  of  the  Syrian  Church  (299-378). 
The  Greek  text  is,  however,  faintly  legible,  and  is 
believed  to  belong  to  the  last  half  of  the  fifth  cen- 
tury. It  came  to  Italy  early  in  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury, whence  it  was  brought  to  France  by  Cather- 
ine de'  Medici,  and  so  was  deposited  in  the  Royal 
Library  at  Paris,  where  it  still  remains.  Origi- 
nally a  copy  of  the  whole  Bible,  it  now  contains 


284  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

parts  of  the  Septuagint  on  sixty-four  leaves  and 
fragments  of  the  New  Testament  on  one  hundred 
and  forty-five  leaves.  Though  thus  fragmentary, 
it  is  a  MS  of  great  value  to  the  critical  student 
of  the  text,  for  it  was  carefully  transcribed,  and 
its  authority  perhaps  ranks  next  to  that  of  the 
Vatican  MS.  But  it  is  equally  significant  for  our 
purpose,  for  every  book  of  our  New  Testa- 
ment is  represented  by  at  least  one  leaf,  save 
Third  John  and  Second  Thessalonians.  The 
order  of  the  books  is  identical  with  that  of  the 
other  codices. 

The  only  other  great  uncial  is  the  Codex  Bezae, 
which  was  presented  to  the  University  of  Cam- 
bridge, in  1 58 1,  by  Theodore  Beza.  All  that  is 
known  of  its  previous  history  is  that  it  came  from 
the  monastery  of  St.  Irenaeus,  at  Lyons,  which 
was  sacked  during  the  civil  war,  and  probably 
some  soldier  who  had  obtained  it  as  plunder  gave 
it  to  Beza.  This  codex  is  a  quarto,  with  two  col- 
umns of  twenty-three  lines  on  a  page,  one  the 

Greek  text,  the  other  a  Latin  trans- 
21.  W*  520  (7) 

lation.     After  the  four  Gospels — 

which  are  given  in  the  unique  order  of  Matthew, 

John,  Luke,  and  Mark — is  a  hiatus  of  sixty-seven 

leaves,  which   originally  contained  the  Catholic 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE    MSS   AND   VERSIONS  285 

Epistles,  and  probably  some  other  book ;  and  then 
the  Acts.  Whether  it  ever  contained  anything 
else  is  uncertain.  This  MS  has  long  been  the 
puzzle  of  textual  critics  because  of  its  numerous 
and  bold  variations  from  all  other  authorities,  and 
its  relation  to  the  question  of  the  Canon  is  little 
less  puzzling.  Its  date  cannot  be  earlier  than  the 
fifth  century,  and  it  more  probably  belongs  to  the 
sixth. 

The  testimony  of  these  MSS  to  the  virtual 
settlement  of  the  Canon  by  the  beginning  of  the 
fifth  century  is  the  more  convincing  because  it  is 
so  wholly  undesigned.  These  splendid  and  costly 
copies  were  evidently  not  made  for  private  use — 
nobody  but  an  emperor  or  some  other  great  func- 
tionary of  high  rank  and  vast  wealth  could  have 
afforded  such  a  possession.  No  scholar  doubts 
that  they  were  made  for  use  in  the  great  Christian 
churches  of  the  empire,  and  being  made  for  that 
purpose  they  accurately  reflect  the  estimate  of 
the  churches  regarding  the  various  books  that 
had  been  competing  for  canonical  recognition. 
Reuss  well  says  of  the  MSS,  "  they  are  some- 
times more  important  and  more  eloquent  than 
the  Fathers  themselves,*'  but  thus  far  the  MSS 
and  the  Fathers  agree  wondrous  well. 


286  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Before  leaving  the  subject  of  manuscript  tes- 
timony altogether,  there  is  another  item  to  be 
considered — the  evidence  offered  by  the  Codex 
Claromontanus.  This  is  a  MS  of  Paul's  Epistles, 
in  Greek  and  Latin,  now  found  in  the  Royal 
Library  at  Paris,  and  believed  to  date  from  the 

middle  of  the  sixth  century.     Each 
B.  W*  550  (1) 

page  has  a  single  column  of  twenty- 
one  lines,  and  the  text  is  esteemed  one  of  the  most 
ancient  and  important  in  existence.  It  contains 
all  the  Pauline  Epistles  (with  a  hiatus  here  and 
there  in  the  text),  Hebrews  being  placed  after 
Philemon,  as  in  most  Western  MSS,  thus  indi- 
cating the  lingering  objections  to  this  Epistle 
on  account  of  its  non-Pauline  authorship. 

But  the  most  significant  thing  in  this  MS  is 
not  its  text,  but  a  list  of  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament  prefixed  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
with  their  stichoi,  or  number  of  lines.  The  list 
is  a  curious  one  in  several  respects.  It  begins 
with  the  four  Gospels  in  this  order:  Matthew, 
John,  Mark,  Luke;  then  follow  the  Epistles  of 
Paul :  Romans,  two  to  the  Corinthians,  Gala- 
tians,  Ephesians,  two  to  Timothy,  Titus,  Colos- 
sians,  Philemon;  two  to  Peter  (which  can  be 
due   only   to   the   carelessness   of   the   copyist), 


TESTIMONY    OF   THE    MSS   AND   VERSIONS  287 

James ;  three  of  John,  Jude ;  Epistle  of  Barnabas 
(probably  meaning  Hebrews) ;  Revelation  of 
John;  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  These  are  all  the 
books  of  the  accepted  Canon,  but  there  follow, 
with  no  indication  of  a  difference  in  character, 
the  Shepherd,  Acts  of  Paul,  and  Revelation  of 
Peter.  These  last  are  books  that  Eusebius  places 
among  the  Notha.  This  is  one  of  the  latest  testi- 
monies available  to  show  the  continued  liturgical 
use  of  some  of  the  same  books  in  the  West,  after 
the  voice  of  authority  had  definitely  pronounced 
against  them.  Nothing  could  more  strongly  em- 
phasize the  principle  that  it  was  the  usage  of  the 
churches,  and  not  authority,  that  decided  the 
whole  question  of  canonicity.  In  other  words, 
canonicity  was  a  matter  of  common  law  in  the 
church,  not  of  statute  law. 

The  making  of  versions  of  the  New  Testament 
books  into  several  of  the  languages  spoken  in 
various  parts  of  the  empire  doubtless  began  long 
before  we  have  any  positive  records  of  them. 
The  native  tongue  of  most  of  the  apostles  was 
Aramaic  (the  "  Hebrew  "  of  Acts  21  :  40,  and 
the  "  Hebrew  "  in  which  tradition  says  Matthew 
first  wrote  his  "  Logia,"  or  sayings  of  the  Lord). 
This  was  the  language  of  the  greater  part  of 


288  OUR    N£W    TESTAMENT 

Syria,  of  which  Antioch  was  the  metropoHs. 
Though  Antioch  was  in  large  part  a  Greek- 
speaking  city,  Aramaic  must  have  been  of  equal 
currency  among  the  native  population ;  and  when 
Antioch  became  the  Christian  missionary  center, 
it  could  not  have  been  long  before  Aramaic 
Christians  began  to  multiply.  As  these  Aramaic 
churches  grew,  the  desire  for  the  Gospels  and 
the  Epistles  in  their  own  tongue  would  grow 
also,  and  by  the  year  150  a  partial  version  at 
least  w^as  in  all  probability  in  circulation.  This 
would  naturally  begin  with  the  translation  of 
separate  books,  which  would  after  a  time  be  col- 
lected, revised,  and  completed.  A  Syrian  version 
is  said  to  have  been  quoted  as  early  as  170  by 
Bishop  Melito,  and  though  the  actual  quotation 
is  from  the  book  of  Genesis,  it  can  hardly  be 
doubted  that  a  version  of  at  least  some  New  Tes- 
tament books  in  Syriac  must  have  preceded  any 
Old  Testament  translations. 

We  need  not  enter  into  the  controversy,  that 
has  long  been  hotly  waging  among  the  learned, 
regarding  the  superior  antiquity  of  the  two  Syriac 
versions,  the  Peshito  and  the  Curetonlan.  Those 
who  have  devoted  most  attention  to  the  matter  are 
the  frankest  to  confess  their  uncertainty.     The 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE    MSS   AND   VERSIONS  289 

Peshito  at  any  rate  seems  to  belong  to  the  second 
century,  and  not  improbably  to  the  first  half  of  it. 
The  oldest  MSS  of  it  contain  the  Provisional 
Canon,  with  the  addition  of  the  Epistles  of  James 
and  Hebrews,  but  excluding-  the 
remammg  four  Catholic  Epistles 
and  the  Apocalypse.  With  this  Canon  the  later 
MSS  seem  to  agree.  To  this  day  the  Syriac 
New  Testament  excludes  the  Apocalypse  and  four 
of  the  Catholic  Epistles.  The  Syrian  Church  be- 
came much  divided  and  so  remains.  But  all  have 
the  same  Canon.  "  Yet  the  same  translation  of 
the  Holy  Scripture  is  read  alike  in  the  public 
assemblies  of  the  Nestorians  among  the  fastnesses 
of  Kurdestan,  of  the  Monophysites  who  are  scat- 
tered over  the  plains  of  Syria,  of  the  Christians  of 
St.  Thomas  along  the  coast  of  Malabar,  and  of 
the  Maronites  on  the  mountain  terraces  of  Leba- 
non." ^  Indeed,  the  Syriac  churches  are  the  only 
Christian  bodies  in  the  world  who  have  never 
accepted  the  orthodox  Canon. 

This  is  what  we  should  be  prepared  to  find, 
since  we  have  seen  the  East  to  be  in  advance  of 
the  West  in  the  reception  of  James  and  Hebrews, 
and  behind  in  the  acceptance  of  the  Apocalypse. 

^  Scrivener,  II.,  7. 
T 


290  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

But  it  is  important  to  observe  that  even  the  East 
was  not  entirely  homogeneous — the  Syrian  school 
and  the  Alexandrine  differed  materially  in  their 
estimate  of  certain  New  Testament  books.  The 
conservatism  of  the  Syrian  churches  in  the  mat- 
ter of  the  Canon  is  shown  in  this :  though  there 
were  doubtless  as  many  apocryphal  books  in  cir- 
culation there  as  elsewhere,  there  is  no  hint, 
whether  in  their  scriptural  MSS  or  in  the  wri- 
tings of  the  Syrian  Fathers,  that  these  apocrypha 
were  ever  confounded  with  the  writings  clearly 
canonical. 

There  would  naturally  be  a  version  made  in 
Latin  at  a  very  early  date  in  the  history  of  Chris- 
tianity. Even  if  we  should  admit  all  that  is  reck- 
lessly asserted  about  the  predominantly  Greek 
character  of  the  Roman  Church  down  to  the 
third  century,  and  thereby  also  admit  that  the 
making  of  an  early  Latin  version  at  Rome  was 
most   unlikely   to   happen,   these   considerations 

would   not   apply   to   the   African 
a.  2).  150  (1) 

Church,  or  to  Carthage,  its  center. 

That  a  Latin  version  must  be  assumed  to  have 
been  produced  and  circulated  there  not  long  after 
150,  seems  to  be  a  fair  inference,  if  not  a  neces- 
sary,  from  the  writings  of  TertuUian.     These 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE    MSS   AND   VERSIONS  29 1 

begin  about  190,  and  it  is  the  general  conclusion 
of  patristic  scholars  that  he  usually  quotes  from 
a  Latin  version,  already  long  enough  circulated 
to  be  in  general  use  and  familiar  to  Christian 
readers. 

But  Tertullian  was  a  fair  Greek  scholar,  and 
he  seems  at  times  to  translate  for  himself  directly 
from  the  Greek.  This  makes  the  task  of  deciding 
what  books  of  the  New  Testament  were  contained 
in  this  old  Latin  version  a  somewhat  difficult  one. 
Some  argue  strenuously  that  it  could  not  have 
contained  Hebrews,  Second  Peter,  or  James,  but 
they  rely  more  on  general  Western  reluctance  to 
accept  these  books  than  on  the  actual  evidence  of 
Tertullian's  citations.  It  is  true  that  he  cites 
James  only  five  times,  but  then  he  refers  to  First 
Thessalonians  and  Titus  only  eight  times  each, 
and  we  may  be  certain  that  the  old  Latin  Canon 
contained  all  the  Pauline  Epistles.  As  to  He- 
brews, he  cites  that  Epistle  forty-two  times,  at 
least  one  quotation  from  nearly  every  chapter, 
and  large  portions  of  chapters  10-13  might  be  re- 
constructed from  his  quotations.  Nor  do  the  pas- 
sages cited  from  this  book  give  any  peculiar 
evidence  of  direct  translation  from  the  Greek, 
rather  than  quotation  from  a  received  Latin  ver- 


292  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

sion.  On  the  whole,  it  is  probable  that  Tertul- 
lian's  Old  Latin  New  Testament  contained  both 
Hebrews  and  James,  but  the  evidence  for  Sec- 
ond Peter,  Jude,  and  Second  and  Third  John  is 
less  satisfactory.  TertuUian  indeed  refers  to  all 
these  in  a  way  to  make  probable  his  acceptance  of 
them  as  canonical,  but  not  so  as  to  prove  their 
presence  in  the  old  Latin  version. 

The  evidence  of  this  version  is,  therefore, 
nearly  what  we  should  expect,  from  other  sources, 
to  be  found  at  this  time  in  a  Western  (and  es- 
pecially an  African)  collection  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment writings,  whether  in  Greek  or  Latin.  But 
this  could  not  have  been  the  only  ancient  version 
in  Latin.  Jerome  tells  us  in  his  preface  to  the 
Gospels,  that  in  his  day  there  were  "  almost  as 
many  versions  as  manuscripts,"  and  Augustine  is 
even  more  emphatic :  *'  For  the  translations  of 
the  Scripture  from  Hebrew  into  Greek  can  be 
counted,  but  the  Latin  translations  are  out  of  all 
number.  For  in  the  early  days  of  the  faith  every 
man  who  happened  to  get  his  hands  upon  a  Greek 
manuscript,  and  who  thought  he  had  any  knowl- 
edge, were  it  ever  so  little,  of  the  two  languages, 
ventured  upon  the  work  of  translation."  ^    After- 

^De  Doc.  Chr.,  ii.  11. 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    MSS   AND    VERSIONS  293 

ward,  Augustine  indicates  clearly  his  own  prefer- 
ence among  these  numerous  translations :  ''  Now, 
among  translations  themselves,  the  Itala  is  to  be 
preferred  to  the  others,  for  it  keeps  closer  to  the 
words,  while  preserving  clearness  and  expres- 
sion." ^ 

But  neither  Jerome  nor  Augustine  was  a  critical 
scholar,  according  to  modern  standards,  and  they 
seem  to  have  mistaken  manuscript  variations  for 
evidence  of  independent  translation.  Many 
manuscripts  exist  that  are  older  than  Jerome's 
recension,  which  became  known  as  the  Vulgate, 
and  a  study  of  these  has  convinced  textual  critics 
that  they  are  all  variations  of,  at  most,  two 
originals:  one  the  African  version  already  men- 
tioned, the  other  one  that  was  made  somewhat 
later  in  Rome,  or  at  any  rate  in  Italy,  probably  the 
one  that  Augustine  calls  Itala.  Unfortunately, 
however,  they  survive  mostly  in  fragments,  and 
these  mainly  confined  to  the  Gospels,  though  one 
contains  the  Acts  and  Apocalypse,  and  others  give 
us  fragments  of  Epistles,  including  First  and 
Second  Peter,  First  John,  James,  and  all  the 
Pauline  Epistles,  including  Hebrews.  The  only 
books  entirely  missing  are  Jude  and  Second  and 

"^  De  Doc.  Chr.,  ii.  15. 


294  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Third  John.  Even  these  must  have  been  added 
before  Jerome  began  his  recension,  but  in  the 
fourth  century  they  were  probably  lacking.  This 
again  agrees  well  with  what  we  have  discovered 
from  other  sources. 

The  Coptic  version  could  have  been  little  later 
than  those  that  we  have  already  considered,  and 
was  probably  in  existence  at  the  beginning  of  the 
third  century.  This  we  can  fairly  infer,  not 
only  from  the  extension  of  Christianity  in  Upper 
«   «.  Egypt  in  the  second  century,  but 

from  what  we  learn  from  Athana- 
sius  about  St  Anthony.  In  this  famous  "Life 
of  Anthony  "  ^  we  are  told  that  the  saint  could 
only  talk  with  Greeks  through  an  interpreter  (c. 
74),  but  in  his  youth  he  heard  the  Gospels  read  in 
church  and  was  deeply  impressed  by  their  teach- 
ings (chap.  2,  3).  It  follows  that  he  must  have 
heard  the  Gospels  in  his  vernacular;  and,  as  he 
was  born  about  250,  this  Coptic  version  must  have 
even  then  been  in  use  for  some  time  in  the 
churches  of  Upper  Egypt. 

We  do  not  know  which  of  the  several  dialects 

*  The  authenticity  of  this  writing  has  been  hotly  disputed,  but 
we  need  not  boggle  over  the  acceptance  of  a  book  that  critics  like 
Keim  and  Hilgenfeld  believe  at  any  rate  to  belong  to  the  age  of 
Athanasius,  and  that  Harnack  and  Moeller  receive  as  trustworthy. 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    MSS    AND    VERSIONS  295 

of  the  Coptic  languages  Anthony  spoke,  nor  can 
we  be  certain  what  relations  the  existing  Coptic 
versions  bear  to  those  in  use  in  his  day.  There 
are  remains  of  at  least  five  different  versions, 
with  marked  dialectic  peculiarities;  but  of  three 
there  are  only  insignificant  fragments,  while  two 
we  have  in  a  form  virtually  complete :  the  Bohairic 
and  Sahidic.  For  our  purposes  it  is  unnecessary  to 
discuss  the  yet  unsolved  problems  of  their  origin 
and  relationship;  what  concerns  us  is  their  con- 
tent. As  far  back  as  we  can  trace  the  history 
of  the  Bohairic  New  Testament,  it  contains  all 
the  books  of  our  Canon,  with  the  exception  of  the 
Apocalypse.  In  many  cases  this  is  contained  in  a 
separate  MS,  and  where  it  is  bound  up  with  the 
other  books  it  is  distinguished  from  them  in  some 
unmistakable  way.  Always  it  is  treated  as  having 
an  authority  inferior  to  that  of  the  other  books. 
If  the  version  was  originally  made  at  the  close 
of  the  second  century,  this  would  reflect  the 
opinion  then  entertained  at  Alexandria  of  the 
Apocalypse,  but  after  Clement  and  Origen  gave 
their  approval  to  the  book  the  case  was  otherwise. 
The  Sahidic  version  exists  in  a  number  of 
MSS,  no  one  of  which  gives  the  whole,  and  in 
addition   to   this   virtually  complete   manuscript 


296  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

text  certain  papyrus  fragments  have  recently  been 
discovered  that  carry  the  date  of  this  version  back 
to  the  third  century,  at  least,  and  not  improbably 
to  the  second.  Both  versions  seem  to  have  ar- 
ranged the  New  Testament  writings  in  the  fol- 
lowing order:  the  four  Gospels,  the  Pauline 
Epistles  (with  Hebrews  between  Second  Corin- 
thians and  Galatians),  the  Catholic  Epistles  and 
the  Acts.  The  Sahidic,  equally  with  the  Bohairic, 
found  no  place  in  the  Canon  for  the  Apocalypse, 
and  does  not  seem  to  have  permitted  that  book 
to  be  added  even  as  a  sort  of  appendix,  for  few 
fragments  of  the  Apocalypse  have  survived. 

The  foregoing  versions  were  all  made  before 
the  end  of  the  third  century,  at  the  latest  date  that 
can  be  possibly  assigned  to  any  of  them,  and  they 
reflect  the  unsettled  state  of  the  Canon  at  the  time 
they  were  made.  But  we  have  a  number  of  ver- 
sions belonging  to  the  fifth  century  when,  as  we 
have  seen,  the  Fathers  and  councils  combine  in 
testimony  that  the  question  was  virtually  settled. 
Do  these  versions  confirm  this  testimony  or  do 
they  contradict  it? 

The  first,  and  most  important  of  these,  is  the 
revision  of  the  old  Latin  versions  made  by  Je- 
rome, and  thenceforth  known  as  the  Vulgate,  or 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE    MSS   AND   VERSIONS  297 

Common  version.  There  were  so  many  variant 
copies  in  circulation  in  his  day — and  the  differ- 
ences between  them  were,  as  we  have  seen, 
so  extensive  as  to  constitute  them  in  Jerome's 
opinion  different  versions — that  to  compare  them 
with  one  another  and  with  the 
original  Greek  and  Hebrew,  and 
make  an  authoritative  text,  seemed  not  only  to 
Jerome,  but  to  other  learned  men  of  the  time,  a 
work  second  in  importance  to  none.  He  com- 
pleted his  revision  of  the  New  Testament  about 
385,  and  the  Old  Testament  in  405.  It  will  not 
surprise  those  who  remember  how  the  Anglo- 
American  Revised  version  of  1881  was  at  first  re- 
ceived, and  how  slow  has  been  its  progress  among 
English-speaking  peoples,  to  hear  that  Jerome 
was  reviled  throughout  the  West  for  his  labors, 
and  that  it  was  not  until  after  Gregory  the  Great 
had  given  it  his  formal  approval  (about  600)  that 
his  recension  came  into  general  use  in  the  Roman 
Church. 

With  the  vicissitudes  of  the  Vulgate,  however, 
we  have  no  immediate  concern,  interesting 
though  it  might  be  to  follow  its  fortunes.  What 
especially  concerns  us  is  its  attitude  toward  the 
Canon.     We  know  from  Jerome's  writings  that 


298  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

he  gave  much  attention  to  this  subject.  In  his 
biographical  sketches  of  ''  Illustrious  Men  "  in 
the  history  of  the  church — the  first  attempt  to- 
ward a  dictionary  of  Christian  biography — he 
has  discussed  all  the  doubtful  and  disputed  books, 
and  their  real  or  putative  authors.  We  also  learn 
clearly  from  Jerome's  writings  that  he  was  anx- 
ious above  all  things  to  be  orthodox,  that  he  was 
so  sensitive  to  no  other  charge  as  to  the  least  im- 
putation of  heresy.  This  lends  double  authority 
to  his  decision  about  the  canonical  books,  for  he 
took  every  possible  pains  to  reflect  and  establish 
the  orthodox  view  of  his  day.  The  New  Testa- 
ment part  of  the  Vulgate,  which  is  all  that  con- 
cerns us  now,  contained  the  books  of  our  present 
Canon  and  no  other.  Although  Jerome,  as  we 
have  seen,  recognized  certain  other  books  as 
edifying,  he  did  not  include  any  of  them  in  his 
revised  version,  which  ended  with  the  Revelation 
of  John. 

There  was  probably  no  single  influence  so  po- 
tent in  bringing  the  entire  West  into  uniformity 
with  regard  to  the  Canon,  as  the  decision  of  Je- 
rome and  the  publication  of  his  version.  As  this 
gradually  came  to  be  truly  the  Vulgate,  the  one 
version  everywhere  received  and  used,  the  only 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE    MSS   AND    VERSIONS  299 

form  in  which  the  New  Testament  was  accessible 
in  all  the  countries  of  Europe  during  the  Middle 
Ages,  all  previous  doubts  disappeared,  all  ques- 
tion regarding  canonicity  ceased,  not  to  be  re- 
vived again  until  the  Reformation.  More  than 
any  bishop,  or  pope,  or  council,  Jerome  is  to  be 
regarded  as  the  final  arbiter  of  all  questions  of 
canonicity  in  the  West.  From  his  day,  the  ques- 
tion is  to  be  regarded  as  settled.  And  it  was  set- 
tled not  by  any  voice  of  authority,  spoken  for 
that  purpose,  but  by  the  extending  use  of  the  Vul- 
gate in  the  public  services  of  the  Western  Church, 
and  by  consequence  its  equal  acceptance  for  pri- 
vate study  and  for  quotation  in  all  theological 
writings.  Usage,  not  authority ;  custom,  not  law, 
from  the  beginning  of  the  process  to  the  end, 
guided  the  formation  of  the  Canon. 

A  version  of  the  Scriptures  was  made  in  Ar- 
menian in  the  fifth  century,  or  possibly  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  fourth.  The  surviving  copies 
have  doubtless  undergone  considerable  variations 
of  text,  in  common  with  all  other  ancient  wri- 

tingfs,   but  there   is   no   reason   to 

,  ,j.  .  ,  B.D.  400(7) 

suppose   that   any   additions   have 

been  made  to  the  contents.    We  have  every  reason 

to  believe  that  the  original  version  contained  what 


300  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

is  found  ill  all  existing  copies,  namely,  all  the 
canonical  New  Testament  books.  The  only  book 
that  we  should  expect  to  be  lacking,  in  any  case, 
is  the  Apocalypse,  and  scholars  are  of  the  opinion 
that  in  the  extant  MSS  we  have  two  independ- 
ent translations  of  this  book.  What  bearing,  if 
any,  this  fact  has  on  the  canonicity  of  the  Apoc- 
alypse is  a  problem  that  up  to  the  present  has  not 
been  worked  out. 

An  Ethiopic  version  that  has  survived  in  a 
number  of  fragmentary  MSS,  which  together 
contain  a  complete  version  of  the  New  Testament, 
is  assigned  by  scholars  to  the  end  of  the  fifth  or 
the  beginning  of  the  sixth  century,  by  which  time 
Christianity  had  become  the  prevailing  religion 
of  Abyssinia.  The  Gospels  ordinarily  form  a  vol- 
ume by  themselves  in  the  existing  MSS  of  this 
version,  while  the  Epistles  of  Paul  made  a  second, 
and  the  Catholic  Epistles,  Acts,  and  the  Apoc- 
alypse, a  third.  This  grouping  bears  witness  to 
a  hypothesis  that  we  have  found  occasionally  sug- 
gested throughout  our  inquiry:  that  our  Canon 
is  the  result  of  putting  together  several  smaller 
collections  that  had  been  independently  made,  and 
at  different  times.  It  cannot  be  said,  however, 
that  all  the  evidence  that  we  have  discovered, 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    MSS    AND    VERSIONS  3OI 

taken   together,    warrants   the   assertion   of   this 
theory  as  a  probable  fact. 

Of  the  Gothic  version  of  Ulfilas  it  is  impossible 
to   speak  definitely,   since   so   little   is   positively 
known   of  it.      The   chief   MS,   the   Codex   Ar- 
genteus,  which  after  many  mutations  of  fortune 
found  a  resting-place  in  the  library  of  the  Univer- 
sity of  Upsala,  Sweden,  contains  only  the  four 
Gospels,  and  even  these  incomplete.     The  other 
most  extensive  MS,  in  the  Ambrosian  Library  at 
Milan,    supplies    parts    of    Paul's  ^  ^^  ^^^  ^^^ 
Epistles  and  some  Old  Testament 
fragments.     A  few  scattered  verses  have  been 
gleaned  from  other  sources,  but  thus  far  no  por- 
tion of  the  Acts,  Hebrews,  Catholic  Epistles,  or 
Apocalypse.     We  cannot  doubt  that  the  greater 
part  of  these,  if  not  all,  were  found  in  the  com- 
plete version.     Indeed,  Philostorgius,  one  of  the 
Greek  historians,  informs  us  that  Ulfilas  trans- 
lated all  the  books  of  both  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments, with  the  exception  of  the  books  of  Kings, 
which  he  thought  too  full  of  wars  to  be  whole- 
some reading  for  so  warlike  a  people  as  the  Goths. 
But  just  how  much  value  is  to  be  attached  to  this, 
or  any  other  unsupported  statement  by  Philostor- 
gius, is  a  matter  of  great  dubiety. 


302  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

The  manuscripts  and  versions  as  a  whole  agree 
entirely  in  their  testimony  with  the  other  docu- 
ments. And  together,  these  original  sources  make 
the  history  of  the  formation  of  the  Canon  as  clear 
as  noonday. 


THE  TESTS  OF  CANONICITY 


X 


CANONICITY  was  the  result  of  usage  pri- 
marily and  chiefly — of  this  our  investiga- 
tion has  given  us  full  and  convincing  proofs.  But 
for  us  to  see  that  this  is  the  historic  fact,  and  for 
those  who  made  the  history  to  be  conscious  of 
w^hat  they  were  doing,  are  two  very  different 
things.  How  far  was  the  process  that  we  have 
been  tracing  a  matter  of  conscious  knowledge  to 
the  Fathers  themselves?  How  did  the  matter  of 
canonicity  present  itself  to  their  minds?  What 
did  they  regard  as  adequate  tests  of  the  canonicity 
of  any  given  book?  It  is  conceded  that  the  an- 
swers to  these  questions  cannot  alter  the  historic 
facts,  but  they  may  strikingly  illuminate  the  facts. 
I.  In  the  numerous  quotations  made  in  the 
previous  chapters  from  the  patristic  literature, 
one  feature  has  surely  been  of  sufficient  promi- 
nence to  arrest  the  attention  of  every  reader,  even 
if  his  attention  had  not  been  more  than  once  called 
to  it:  the  emphasis  laid  by  so  many  of  the 
Fathers  on  the  fact  that  certain  books  were  (or 
were  not)  "  read  in  the  churches."  That  phrase 
u  305 


306  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

has  been  one  of  too  frequent  recurrence  for  its 
significance  to  be  missed.  From  the  first  mention 
by  Justin  of  the  reading  of  the  "  Memoirs  "  of 
the  apostles  in  the  pubhc  Christian  assembhes  of 
his  day,  to  the  dying-away  of  all  controversy 
about  the  Canon  in  the  fifth  century,  we  find 
that  phrase  "  read  in  the  churches,"  or  some 
equivalent,  continually  used. 

Not  only  so,  but,  beginning  with  Irenseus,  we 
find  the  reading  in  the  churches  of  a  given  book, 
or  the  reverse,  constantly  adduced  as  a  valid 
reason  for  regarding  a  book  as  canonical.  That 
Father,  it  will  be  remembered,  exhorts  those  who 
wish  to  know  the  truth  to  "  read  the  Scriptures 
diligently  in  company  with  the  presbyters  in  the 
church,  with  whom  is  the  apostolic  doctrine." 
The  books  read  as  Scripture  in  the  Catholic 
churches,  and  only  those,  are  safe  guides  for  him 
who  would  live  as  a  Christian — that  is  the  con- 
viction of  Irenseus,  and  we  may  take  it  that  this 
had  become  a  general  conviction  toward  the  close 
of  the  second  century.  The  Muratorian  canon, 
though  it  recognizes  other  tests  of  canonicity, 
which  we  shall  presently  consider,  also  lays  great 
stress  on  this  reading  in  the  churches  as  at  any 
rate  the  decisive  practical  proof  that  a  book  is 


THE   TESTS   OF    CANONICITY  307 

canonical.  This  conclusion  is  confirmed  by  the 
language  of  Tertullian,  who  urges  in  favor  of 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  which  he  attributes  to 
Barnabas,  that  it  is  "  more  received  in  the 
churches  than  that  apocryphal  Shepherd  of 
adulterers  ";  and  the  latter  book,  he  also  tells  us, 
has  been  everywhere  rejected  by  the  churches. 
To  him  this  is  evidently  a  decisive  reason  for  ac- 
cepting or  rejecting  a  book,  though  he  makes  it 
clear  elsewhere  that  he  did  not  consider  it  the 
sole  reason. 

The  testimony  of  Eusebius  shows  conclusively 
what  was  the  feeling  of  his  time  in  the  matter. 
He  especially  mentions  that  the  Shepherd  "  has 
been  publicly  read  in  the  churches,"  but  makes  it 
clear  in  the  context  that  this  means  merely  some 
churches.  It  is  precisely  because  it  was  not  uni- 
versally read  in  churches  that  he  declined  to  place 
it  among  the  acknowledged  books  (Homologoii- 
mena),  or  even  among  the  Antilegomena,  that 
were  semi-canonical  in  his  day,  but  distinctly 
among  the  Notha,  or  "  spurious  "  books.  The 
apparent  inconsistencies  between  the  two  chief 
passages  in  which  Eusebius  discusses  the  matter 
of  the  Canon  disappear  as  soon  as  we  get  his 
point  of  view.    Among  the  books  not  fully  canon- 


308  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

ical  in  his  day,  i.  e.,  universally  received  and  read 
in  all  the  churches,  were  some  that  were  received 
and  read  by  the  majority,  though  still  rejected  by 
''some";  these  he  called  the  Antilegoniena. 
There  were  others  that,  though  accepted  and  read 
by  "  some,"  were  not  accepted  and  read  by  the 
majority;  these  were  called  Nothaj  spurious/ 
His  classification  and  nomenclature  were  abso- 
lutely determined  by  the  fact  of  liturgical  use, 
though  his  personal  opinion  regarding  individual 
books  was  greatly  affected  by  what  he  calls  the 
usage  of  the  ancient  or  ecclesiastical  writers, 
which  we  shall  consider  in  another  connection. 

The  Festal  Letter  of  Athanasius,^  which  he 
wrote  in  367,  has  been  frequently  cited  during  our 
investigation.  When  we  consider  that  this  is  a 
letter  addressed  to  the  clergy,  it  is  evident  that  the 
whole  question  was  to  his  mind  one  of  public 
reading  of  books  as  Scripture  in  the  churches — 
Athanasius  makes  no  objection  to  private  reading 
of  other  books ;  indeed,  he  expressly  adds  that  it  is 
permitted — and  that  to  his  mind  the  one  conclu- 

*  He  even  recognizes  two  classes,  or  grades,  among  the  Notha: 
books  read  in  some  churches  or  quoted  by  the  ancients,  or  both, 
yet  nevertheless  not  canonical,  but  what  Rufinus  calls  "  ecclesiasti- 
cal"; and  books  neither  read  in  churches  nor  cited  by  Fathers, 
though  some  bore  the  names  of  apostles. 

2  Appendix  V. 


THE    TESTS    OF    CANONICITY  309 

sive  test  of  canonicity  was  usage  of  the  churches. 

Such   books   as    were    everywhere    read    in    the 

churches,  and  such  books  alone,  could  be  regarded 

as  "  handed  down  and  accredited  as  divine." 

But  of  all  the  Fathers,  Augustine  gives  us  the 

fullest  and  clearest  testimony  on  the  subject.     In 

his  treatise  on  "  Christian  Doctrine  "  he  tells  his 

readers  how  the  question  of  canonicity  was  to  be 

decided : 

Now,  in  regard  to  the  canonical  Scriptures,  he  [the 
interpreter]  must  follow  the  judgment  of  the  greater 
number  of  catholic  churches;  and  among  these,  of 
course,  a  high  place  must  be  given  to  such  as  have  been 
thought  worthy  to  be  the  seat  of  an  apostle  and  to  re- 
ceive epistles.  Accordingly,  among  the  canonical 
Scriptures,  he  will  judge  according  to  the  following 
standard:  to  prefer  those  that  are  received  by  all  the 
catholic  churches  to  those  which  some  do  not  receive. 
Among  those  again,  which  are  not  received  by  all,  he 
will  prefer  such  as  have  the  sanction  of  the  greater 
number  and  those  of  greater  authority,  to  such  as  are 
held  by  the  smaller  number  and  those  of  less  authority. 
If,  however,  he  shall  find  that  some  books  are  held  by 
the  greater  number  of  churches,  and  others  by  the 
churches  of  greater  authority  (though  this  is  not  a  very 
likely  thing  to  happen),  I  think  that  in  such  a  case  the 
authority  on  the  two  sides  is  to  be  looked  upon  as 
equal.* 

How  Augustine  would  apply  this  principle  he 
makes  plain  in  his  catalogue  of  the  Old  Testa- 

^  Christ.  Doc,  ii.  8. 


310  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

ment.  He  mentions  that  two  books,  Wisdom  and 
Ecclesiasticus,  though  sometimes  attributed  to 
Solomon,  were  probably  written  by  Jesus  the  son 
of  Sirach,  and  adds :  ''  Still  they  are  to  be  reckoned 
among  the  prophetic  books,  since  they  have  at- 
tained recognition  as  being  authoritative."  ^  The 
first  three  books  of  this  treatise  were  written  in 
397,  but  the  fourth  book  was  not  written  till  426, 
in  which  year  the  whole  was  published.  It  is 
significant  that,  though  Augustine  was  present 
at  the  Synod  of  Carthage  in  397,  and  took  part  in 
its  proceedings,  he  makes  no  reference  to  its  de- 
cree regarding  the  Canon  as  being  authoritative. 
Indeed,  why  should  he?  or  how  could  he?  The 
Carthage  Synod  did  nothing  but  declare,  as  mat- 
ter of  fact,  what  were  the  canonical  Scriptures, 
as  actually  received  by  the  catholic  churches. 
The  Synod  and  Augustine  agreed  perfectly,  alike 
in  the  principle  involved,  which  both  accepted,  and 
as  to  the  facts,  to  which  both  testify. 

II.  A  second  test  of  canonicity  was  recogni- 
tion by  the  Fathers.  Eusebius,  in  one  passage, 
makes  this  even  more  prominent  than  the  public 

^  In  his  "  Retractations  "  Augustine  tells  us  that  he  made  a  mistake 
about  this,  and  has  since  learned  that  Wisdom  was  probably  not 
written  by  Jesus  son  of  Sirach,  though  Ecclesiasticus  was.  (Book 
11.  4.) 


THE    TESTS    OF    CANONICITY  3II 

reading  in  the  churches.  The  first  Epistle  of 
Peter  he  accepts  because  "  the  ancient  presbyters 
used  it  freely  in  their  own  writings,  as  an  undis- 
puted work."  On  the  other  hand,  he  declines  to 
receive  the  Acts  of  Peter  and  the  Gospel,  Preach- 
ing, and  Apocalypse  that  also  bear  his  name, 
"  because  no  ecclesiastical  writer,  ancient  or 
modern,  has  made  use  of  the  testimonies  drawn 
from  them."  And  accordingly,  he  quotes  what  is 
said  regarding  various  books  by  Papias,  Irenseus, 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  Origen,  Dionysius  of 
Corinth,  and  other  Fathers,  most  of  which  quota- 
tions have  already  appeared  in  their  appropriate 
places  in  this  investigation,  and  need  not  be  re- 
peated. Some  of  these  quotations  bear  only  in  an 
indirect  manner  on  the  question  of  canonicity,  be- 
ing rather  concerned  with  the  kindred  yet  dis- 
tinct questions  of  authorship  and  historicity.  If 
Eusebius  had  been  a  more  accurate  thinker  he 
would  have  made  this  distinction,  but  he  evidently 
saw  little  if  any  difference  between  these  three  re- 
lated questions,  and  evidence  that  properly  be- 
longs to  one  he  often  advances  to  prove  another. 
But  though  no  other  writer  quotes  his  prede- 
cessors so  profusely  as  Eusebius,  the  practice  is 
by  no  means  confined  to  him.     Irenaeus  appeals 


312  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

frequently  to  the  testimony  of  a  "  certain  presby- 
ter," whom  he  does  not  name;  and  by  name  he 
cites  Papias,  Polycarp,  and  Justin  as  testifying 
to  the  Christian  writings  and  their  content.  Ori- 
gen  refers  to  the  "  men  of  old  "  who  had  handed 
down  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  as  Paul's  wri- 
ting. It  is  probable  that  the  authority  of  the 
Fathers  is  included  in  the  phrase  of  Athanasius 
about  the  books  that  "  had  been  handed  down 
and  accredited  as  divine."  Jerome  quotes  every 
bit  of  tradition  regarding  the  New  Testament 
books  that  his  diligence  has  enabled  him  to  scrape 
together. 

These  instances  are  not  very  numerous,  perhaps 
less  numerous  than  we  might  have  expected  in 
view  of  the  importance  that  Eusebius  seems  to 
attach  to  this  test,  but  we  may  well  remember 
this :  the  judgment  of  most  men  who  were  worthy 
of  being  cited  as  authority  passed  into  and  be- 
came lost  in  the  judgment  of  their  churches. 
They  expressed  their  conviction  regarding  any 
writing,  by  using  their  influence  to  have  it  ad- 
mitted into  or  excluded  from  the  collection  of 
books  preserved  in  their  church  and  publicly  read 
and  expounded  as  a  part  of  divine  worship. 
When  we  note  the  usage  of  the  churches,  there- 


THE    TESTS    OF    CANONICITY 


313 


fore,  we  are  always  connoting  the  judgment  of 
the  Fathers.  Having  given  their  testimony  in  the 
most  practical  and  effective  form,  and  having 
ever  before  them  in  general  ecclesiastical  usage 
the  testimony  of  others,  they  were  little  concerned 
about  literary  evidence  of  their  own  judgment, 
and  still  less  to  preserve  in  literary  form  the  judg- 
ment of  others. 

III.  Apostolic  authorship  was  an  important 
test  of  canonicity,  so  important  that  not  a  few 
writers  of  authority  have  insisted  that  it  was  the 
chief  test,  or  even  the  sole  test.^  But  this  can 
hardly  be  made  good,  in  face  of  the  fact  that  three 
Gospels  are  anonymous,  and  two  of  them  are  not 
even  attributed  to  an  apostle;  to  say  nothing  of 
the  Acts  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  both 
of  which  are  anonymous,  and  one  of  them  never 
attributed  to  an  apostle,  while  the  other  was  at- 
tributed to  an  apostle  who  almost  certainly  did 
not  write  it.  How  any  one,  with  such  facts  con- 
fronting him,  can  say  that  apostolic  authorship 
was  necessary  to  canonicity  passes  comprehen- 
sion. 

»For  example,  Harnack,  who  maintains  that  TertuUian  and 
Irenaeus  regard  all  apostolic  writings  as  canonical,  and  conversely 
accept  nothing  as  canonical  that  they  do  not  believe  to  be  apostolic. 
(Dogma,  ii.  55,  note.) 


314  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

t5  "  Apostolicity,"    say    others,    was    necessary. 

That  is  to  say,  though  a  book  might  not  be  written 
by  an  apostle,  it  must  come  from  the  apostoHc 
circle,  and  embody  apostolic  ideas  and  traditions. 
There  is  much  to  be  said  for  this,  provided  it  is 
not  made  the  chief  test — the  facts  will  not  admit 
of  that.  That  apostolicity,  in  this  modified  sense, 
came  to  be  regarded  as  one  of  the  tests  of  a 
book's  claim  to  a  place  in  the  Canon  is  probably 
true,  though  little  direct  evidence  can  be  quoted 
in  favor  of  this  theory.  There  is  plenty  of  indi- 
rect evidence,  however,  that  is  hardly  explicable 
on  any  other  hypothesis.  For  example,  the  tra- 
ditions that  early  came  to  be  circulated  about  the 
Gospels  of  Mark  and  Luke.  Justin  ^  is  careful  to 
say  that  the  Memoirs,  or  Gospels,  were  written 
"  by  apostles  and  their  companions,"  which  indi- 
cates that  already  the  need  of  some  apostolic  sanc- 
tion was  felt  for  books  that  had  been  admitted  to 
the  Canon  for  their  own  intrinsic  worth.  Ter- 
tullian  is  careful  to  assure  his  readers  that  while 
Matthew  and  John  were  written  by  apostles,  Mark 
and  Luke  had  as  authors  "  apostolic  men,"  i.  e., 
companions  of  apostles.  And  still  earlier,  though 
we  have  it  only  through  Eusebius,  Papias  had  re- 

^  Dial.,  103. 


THE   TESTS   OF    CANONICITY  315 

corded  that  Mark  was  a  follower  and  interpreter 
of  Peter  and  wrote  down  what  he  remembered 
of  Peter's  teachings.  And  Luke,  Eusebius  tells 
us,  in  the  writing  of  his  Gospel,  was  ''  aided  by  his 
intimacy  and  his  stay  with  Paul  and  by  his  ac- 
quaintance with  the  rest  of  the  apostles,"  in  which 
he  is  probably  following  Irenaeus/  Why  this  care 
to  establish  the  close  connection  of  Mark  with 
Peter,  and  of  Luke  with  Paul,  save  to  give  to 
their  Gospels  an  apostolic  authority  that  they 
could  not  otherwise  be  thought  to  possess? 

It  was  the  need  of  this  same  shield  of  apostolic 
authority,  no  doubt,  that  led  TertuUian  to  as- 
cribe the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  to  Barnabas,  and 
Clement  to  say  that  it  is  Luke's  translation  of  a 
Hebrew  original  by  Paul.  A  clear  and  positive 
tradition  in  the  West  that  this  book  was  not 
Paul's  kept  this  Epistle  long  in  a  state  of  dubious 
canonicity,  since  the  West  was  strongly  inclined 
to  insist  on  actual  or  virtual  apostolic  author- 
ship, while  the  East  was  content  with  "  apos- 
tolicity,"  that  is,  that  a  book  came  from  the  apos- 
tolic circle  and  embodied  apostolic  doctrine,  both 
of  which  might  be  confidently  affirmed  of  He- 
brews. 

^  Adv.  Haer.j  iii.  14.  I. 


3l6  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

IV.  The  content  of  a  book  was  also  taken  into 
consideration  in  deciding  its  canonicity.  That 
is  to  say,  its  doctrine  must  be  generally  recognized 
to  be  correct.  We  are  so  accustomed  ourselves 
to  make  the  Scripture  the  sole  test  of  doctrine  as 
to  be  inclined  to  forget  that  such  was  not  the 
practice  of  the  Church  during  the  centuries  while 
the  Canon  was  forming.  Side  by  side  with  the 
Scriptures  was  another  standard  of  doctrine,  the 
deposit  of  the  faith  orally  received  by  the  churches 
from  the  apostles  and  orally  transmitted  from 
generation  to  generation.  This  was  the  regida 
adeij  or  "rule  of  faith,"  of  which  Tertullian  makes 
so  much.  Twice  in  his  writings  he  formally 
states  what  this  "  rule  of  faith  "  was.  In  one 
case  he  gives  a  terse  form  of  the  Apostles'  Creed ; 
in  the  other,  he  paraphrases  and  elaborates  some 
of  the  clauses,  but  adds  no  new  article.  In  both 
he  makes  it  clear  that  the  Catholic  churches  had 
a  standard  of  Christian  doctrine  which  they  be- 
lieved had  come  by  trustworthy  transmission  di- 
rect from  the  apostles.  This  rule  of  faith  and  the 
Scriptures  mutually  appealed  to  and  confirmed 
each  other.  Whatever  did  not  agree  with  either 
was  rejected,  and  any  writing  that  did  not  con- 
form to  the  rule  of  faith  could  not  be  accepted  as 


THE    TESTS    OF    CANONICITY 


317 


Scripture.  It  was  because  he  believed  it  to  con- 
tain false  and  dangerous  doctrine  that  Tertullian 
protested  so  strongl)^  against  the  Shepherd. 

Even  before  Tertullian  this  idea  of  the  neces- 
sity of  orthodoxy  had  found  firm  lodgment  in 
the  West,  at  least.  The  Muratorian  Fragment 
objects  to  the  reception  into  the  Catholic  Church 
of  certain  epistles,  falsely  called  Pauline,  "for 
it  is  not  suitable  for  gall  to  be  mixed  with  honey." 
The  books  of  the  Gnostic  heretics  are  also  said  to 
be  rejected.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Shepherd, 
though  apparently  of  unexceptional  orthodoxy, 
and  to  be  read  for  edification,  "  cannot  be  publicly 
read  in  the  churches  to  the  people,"  evidently  be- 
cause it  has  no  shadow  of  claim  to  apostolicity, 
having  been  written  "  very  recently  in  our  own 
times  in  the  city  of  Rome,"  by  one  Hennas, 
"  while  his  brother,  Pius,  occupied  the  chair  of 
the  Church  of  Rome."  Even  a  book  that  was  at 
least  believed  to  be  from  the  pen  of  a  Roman 
bishop's  brother  could  not  be  admitted  to  be 
canonical  in  the  West,  if  this  is  really  a  Western 
document. 

V.  Finally,  the  capacity  of  a  book  to  edify  was 
an  accepted  test  of  canonicity.    Tertullian  ^  avows 

^De  Vel.  Virg.,  c.  3. 


3l8  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

this  in  his  discussion  of  the  canonicity  of  Enoch, 
and  of  course  his  principle  would  apply  equally 
to  all  Christian  writings :  ''  But  since  Enoch  in 
the  same  Scripture  has  preached  likewise  concern- 
ing the  Lord,  nothing  at  all  must  be  rejected  by  us 
which  pertains  to  us ;  and  we  read  that  '  every 
Scripture  suitable  for  edification  is  divinely  in- 
spired.' "  ^  This  rendering  of  2  Tim.  3  :  i6  is 
not  unimpeachable,  but  that  is  not  the  point — the 
point  is  that  Tertullian  regards  edification  as  im- 
plying inspiration,  and  hence  canonicity.  Euse- 
bius  evidently  held  a  similar  opinion  and,  what 
is  far  more  significant,  bears  witness  that  such 
an  opinion  was  general.  Speaking  of  the  Second 
Epistle  of  Peter,  he  says,  "  we  have  learned  that 
this  extant  second  epistle  ought  not  to  be  re- 
ceived [into  full  canonicity],  but  as  it  appeared 
profitable  to  many,  it  has  been  used  with  the  other 
Scriptures."  That  is  to  say,  because  it  was  profit- 
able some  churches  used  it  for  public  reading,  so 
that  it  was  a  candidate  for  canonicity,  but  not  yet 
fully  approved.  Of  the  Shepherd  he  says,  that 
while  it  is  rejected  by  some,   "  by  others  it  is 

1  Tertullian  frankly  admits  that  "  the  Scripture  of  Enoch,"  as  he 
calls  it,  is  not  in  the  Jewish  Canon,  and  hence  that  some  Christians 
do  not  receive  it;  but  he  argues  that  the  Jews  evidently  rejected  it 
because  it  testified  too  clearly  of  Christ. 


THE    TESTS   OF    CANONICITY  319 

considered  quite  indispensable,  especially  to  those 
who  need  instruction  in  the  elements  of  the  faith," 
and  hence  has  been  publicly  read  in  the  churches. 
But  eventually  the  Shepherd  was  rejected  from 
the  Canon. 

We  find  similar  facts  mentioned  down  to  the 
fifth  century,  even  after  the  question  of  the  Canon 
must  be  regarded  as  definitely  settled.  A  number 
of  books — the  Epistles  of  Clement  and  Barnabas 
and  the  Shepherd  at  least — for  some  generations 
maintained  a  place  as  a  sort  of  appendix  to  the 
Canon,  because  of  their  recognized  value  for 
edification.  We  may  find  it  a  little  difficult  to 
comprehend  why  these  books  were  so  highly  es- 
teemed, but  that  is  not  at  all  material.  The  un- 
mistakable fact  is  that  they  w^ere  so  esteemed 
down  to  the  sixth  or  seventh  century.  That  es- 
teem was  sufficient  to  keep  them  in  use  as  edifying 
writings,  but  not  enough  to  ensure  them  a  place  in 
the  Canon. 

Must  not  the  conclusion  be  drawn  from  this 
fact  that  edification  was  considered  a  less  im- 
portant formal  qualification  than  apostolicity  ? 
No  book  could  be  admitted  to  the  Canon  that 
wholly  lacked  this  edifying  quality — though  it 
must  be  confessed  that  the  Fathers  attribute  very 


320  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

little  edification  to  some  of  the  canonical  books — 
but  capacity  to  edify  seems  not  to  have  been  suf- 
ficient to  secure  canonical  recognition  for  a  book, 
else  the  Shepherd  would  almost  certainly  have 
secured  it.  For,  with  the  single  exception  of  Ter- 
tullian,  all  the  Fathers  speak  well  of  it ;  some  quote 
it  with  utmost  respect;  at  least  one  explicitly  de- 
clares it  to  be  inspired;  and  all  these  commenda- 
tions fairly  reflected  the  common  judgment  of 
Christian  readers. 

And  yet,  though  the  Fathers  did  not  adequately 
appreciate  the  fact,  and  hence  have  imperfectly 
testified  to  it,  can  we  avoid  the  conclusion  that 
this  was  the  really  decisive  test,  both  for  and 
against  the  admission  of  books  to  the  Canon? 
The  universal,  even  though  so  largely  silent,  con- 
viction of  the  Church  as  to  the  supreme  worth  of 
certain  books  for  the  guidance  and  building  up  of 
Christian  character  must  have  been  the  principle 
on  which  the  fact  of  Catholic  usage  rested.  We 
can  reach  this  conclusion  not  only  by  the  exami- 
nation of  the  direct  evidence,  not  inconsiderable 
in  itself,  but  by  a  process  of  exclusion.  There 
is  no  other  adequate  motive  assignable.  That  of 
which  Harnack  and  others  make  so  much,  the  de- 
sire to  build  up  a  compact  orthodox  literature,  to 


THE    TESTS    OF    CANONICITY  32 1 

serve  as  a  defense  against  heresy,  we  have  seen 
fails  to  explain  more  than  a  small  part  of  the 
facts.  As  a  co-ordinating  principle  to  account 
for  the  whole  process  of  Canon-making  it  is 
miserably  inadequate.  But  the  hypothesis  that 
Catholic  usage,  which  is  the  actual  historic  basis 
of  the  Canon,  was  itself  based  on  the  silent  con- 
viction of  the  Church,  gradually  reached  through 
the  Christian  experience  of  generations,  that  these 
books  had  an  intrinsic  divine  character,  and  were 
preeminently  fitted  to  edify  the  saints,  will  ac- 
count for  all  the  facts.  No  other  hypothesis  ever 
proposed  so  satisfactorily  accounts  for  all  that  is 
known,  while  contradicting  none  of  our  knowl- 
edge, as  does  this. 

This  test  that  the  Fathers  of  the  first  five  cen- 
turies treat  as  if  it  were  of  secondary  value,  seems 
to  Protestant  evangelical  Christians  of  the  pres- 
ent day  the  only  decisive  test ;  while  the  test  upon 
which  the  first  centuries  laid  so  prepondera- 
ting stress,  the  custom  of  the  Catholic  churches, 
seems  to  us  of  very  little  worth.  With  the  be- 
ginning of  the  Reformation,  there  began  careful 
inquiry  into  the  validity  of  the  things  that  had 
been  established  by  the  custom  of  the  Church, 
and  most  of  them  were  presently  disallowed  as 


2^22  OITR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

unknown  to  the  churches  estabHshed  by  the 
apostles  and,  therefore,  at  best,  to  be  regarded 
as  excrescences  on  primitive  Christianity.  The 
Canon  could  not  and  did  not  escape  examination, 
though  it  cannot  be  said  that  it  was  at  that  time 
given  any  rigid  and  scientific  scrutiny.  It  was 
perceived,  however,  that  some  better  basis  must 
be  found  for  the  authority  of  Scripture  than  the 
mere  custom  of  the  Church,  or  it  could  not  be 
made  the  final  court  of  appeal  in  the  controversies 
then  raging.  In  other  words,  some  answer  had  to 
be  found  to  the  question,  On  what  does  canon- 
icity  depend?  Do  we  receive  the  books  called 
the  New  Testament  because  the  Church  has  au- 
thoritatively declared  them  to  be  Scripture?  Or 
do  we  receive  these  books  as  Scripture,  the  in- 
spired and  authoritative  word  of  God,  because  of 
their  own  intrinsic  value?  And  if  the  latter,  what 
is  the  final  guarantee  of  their  value? 

Erasmus,  who  fully  shared  the  critical  doubts 
of  his  age  regarding  the  authorship  of  some 
of  the  books,  was  yet  ready  to  submit  to  the  voice 
of  authority,  spoken  through  the  Church.  "  Ac- 
cording to  human  reason,"  he  says,  "  I  neither 
believe  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  the 
work  of  Paul  or  of  Luke,  nor  that  the  second 


THE   TESTS    OF    CANONICITY  323 

Epistle  of  Peter  was  written  by  Peter,  nor  that 
the  Apocalypse  is  from  John  the  apostle.  .  . 
Nevertheless,  if  the  Church  receives  the  titles,  I 
condemn  my  doubts,  for  the  expressed  judgment 
of  the  Church  counts  for  more  with  me  than 
human  reasons  of  any  sort."  ^  He  would,  in 
other  words,  accept  the  decision  of  the  Church, 
not  merely  as  to  the  ecclesiastical  fact  of 
canonicity,  but  as  to  the  historical  fact  of  author- 
ship. If  the  Church  said  a  thing  was  so,  Erasmus 
would  hold  that  it  was  so,  even  if  he  knew  it 
wasn't  so!  And,  of  course,  every  loyal  Roman 
Catholic  must  ahvays  be  ready  to  stultify  him- 
self in  just  that  way. 

But  the  Reformers  were  not  ready  to  commit 
that  sort  of  intellectual  hara-kiri.  To  Luther, 
Christianity  was  a  personal  experience  of  salva- 
tion by  grace,  and  its  central  truth  was  the  sin- 
ner's justification  by  faith  alone  in  Christ  and 
his  work  of  expiation,  to  the  absolute  exclusion  of 
all  merit  gained  by  w^orks.  To  him,  therefore, 
canonicity  was  determined  by  the  attitude  of  a 
book  toward  these  particular  ideas,  which  he  held 
to  be  fundamental.  "There  is  the  true  touch- 
stone to  test  all  books,  when  one  sees  whether 

lOp.,  ix.  864. 


324  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

they  are  concerned  with  Christ  or  not,  since  all 
Scripture  ought  to  show  us  Christ  (Rom.  3), 
and  St.  Paul  will  nothing  but  Christ  (i  Cor.  2). 
What  Christ  does  not  teach  is  not  apostolic,  even 
though  Peter  or  Paul  should  teach  it;  on  the 
other  hand,  what  Christ  teaches  would  be  apos- 
tolic though  it  were  said  by  Judas,  Annas,  Pilate, 
or  Herod."  ^  The  whole  Bible  ought  to  preach 
Christ  and  his  salvation,  otherwise  it  was  no 
Bible.  Any  book  that  was  utterly  silent  about 
Christ  might  be  tolerated,  but  had  no  place  in 
the  Canon ;  while  any  book  that  was  in  any  way 
inconsistent  with  these  ideas  ought  not  to  be 
tolerated  by  Christians  at  all.  From  his  point  of 
view,  therefore,  the  Gospel  of  John,  the  Pauline 
Epistles  (especially  Romans  and  Galatians),  and 
the  first  Epistle  of  Peter,  as  they  contain  the 
very  marrow  of  the  Gospel,  are  the  important 
books  of  the  Canon  and  are  to  be  preferred  to  all 
others.^  This  was  why  he  felt  bound  to  reject 
from  the  Canon  the  Epistles  of  James  and  Jude, 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  the  Apocalypse, 
and  place  them  at  the  end  of  the  volume  in  his 
version  of  the  New  Testament,  while  in  the  table 

1  Preface  to  James,  German  Works  73  :  157. 

^ Loc.  cit.,  73  :  114;  Preface  to  the  New  Testament,  1522. 


THE    TESTS    OF    CANONICITY  325 

of  contents  their  titles  were  separated  by  a  signif- 
icant interval  from  the  first  twenty-three  books, 
which  are  further  distinguished  by  being  num- 
bered, while  the  last  four  are  not. 

And  Luther  makes  abundantly  plain  in  his 
various  prefaces  his  reason  for  this  rejection  of 
the  authority  of  these  books.  It  rests  entirely  on 
his  estimate  of  their  intrinsic  worth.  It  is  true 
that  he  mentions  the  fact  of  their  insufficient  his- 
torical attestation,  but  evidently  that  is  not  the 
real,  impelling  reason  for  his  rejection  of  them, 
for  Second  Peter  is  even  less  attested ;  and  he  does 
not  say  a  word  about  that,  but  puts  it  in  his 
Canon.  Defective  historical  attestation  never 
troubled  him.  He  objects  to  James  because  of  its 
unsound  doctrine  (as  he  thought)  of  justification 
by  works.  He  objects  to  Hebrews  because  in  three 
places  (chapters  6,  lo,  12)  it  seems  to  him  to 
deny  the  possibility  of  repentance  for  sins  com- 
mitted after  baptism,  contrary  to  the  Gospels  and 
the  Epistles  of  Paul.  Nevertheless,  he  calls  the 
setting  forth  of  Christ's  priesthood  in  this  Epistle 
"  masterly."  The  Epistle  of  Jude  contains  noth- 
ing that  is  fundamental  to  the  Christian  faith  and 
is  "useless."  The  Apocalypse  he  held  to  be 
neither  apostolic  nor  prophetic.     It  contains  only 


326  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

images  and  visions  which  nobody  can  understand, 
and  Christ  is  neither  taught  nor  acknowledged !  ^ 
Some  of  these  views  are  purely  personal,  sub- 
jective, and  even  whimsical.  They  did  not  con- 
vince the  followers  of  Luther;  for,  though 
Lutherans  have  always  retained  in  their  German 
Bible  the  peculiar  arrangement  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment books  adopted  by  its  translator,  they  very 
early  abandoned  his  views  of  the  last  four  books, 
and  developed  an  extreme  theory  of  the  verbal 
inspiration  and  absolute  authority  of  the  whole 
Canon.  The  value  of  Luther's  work  consists  in 
the  fact  that  he  overthrew,  so  far  as  the  Protes- 
tant world  is  concerned,  the  idea  that  the  authority 
of  the  Canon  rests  on  no  better  foundation  than 
the  custom  of  the  Church.  The  books  of  the  New 
Testament  have  an  intrinsic  value,  or  else  they 
lack  intrinsic  value,  and  the  question  of  their  ac- 
ception  or  rejection  turns  on  the  estimate  of  that 
value.  The  weak  point  in  Luther's  statement  of 
principle  was  that  it  provided  no  criterion  of 
value.  He  seems  to  have  assumed  that  each  be- 
liever has  a  right  to  decide  the  matter  for  himself 
— as,  in  a  sense,  the  right  of  private  judgment 

*  See  the  Prefaces  to  these  books  in  the  volume  of  Luther's  Ger- 
man works  already  cited. 


THE    TESTS    OF    CANONICITY  327 

implies— and  so  he  proceeded  to  make  his  own 
Canon,  and  then,  with  characteristic  inconsist- 
ency, to  impose  that  on  others,  so  far  as  he  was 
able. 

The  other  Reformers  perceived  this  defect  in 
Luther's  teaching,  and  deplored  the  practical  re- 
sults to  which  it  led  him.  They  therefore  devoted 
themselves  to  strengthening  this  weak  place  in  the 
Protestant  position  regarding  the  Canon.  It  was 
Calvin,  the  greatest  theologian  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, who  spoke  the  decisive  word  on  this,  as  on 
so  many  other  questions  then  in  dispute.  The 
earlier  editions  of  his  ''  Institutes  "  did  not  con- 
tain a  discussion  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  but  four 
chapters  of  Book  I.,  of  the  final  edition  of  1559, 
are  given  to  this  subject.  Many  ask,  he  says, 
"  who  can  assure  us  that  the  Scriptures  proceeded 
from  God;  who  guarantee  that  they  have  come 
down  safe  and  unimpaired  to  our  times ;  who  per- 
suade us  that  this  book  is  to  be  received  with. 
reverence,  and  that  one  expunged  from  the  list, 
did  not  the  Church  regulate  these  things  with 
certainty  ?  "  Such  questions  he  stigmatizes  as 
profane  and  "  insult  to  the  Holy  Spirit."  "  Noth- 
ing can  be  more  absurd  than  the  fiction  that  the 
power  of  judging  Scripture  is  in  the  Church,  and 


^28  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

that  on  her  nod  its  certainty  depends.  When  the 
Church  receives  it  and  gives  it  the  stamp  of  her 
authority,  she  does  not  make  that  authentic  which 
was  otherwise  doubtful  or  controverted,  but,  ac- 
knowledging it  as  the  truth  of  God,  she,  as  in 
duty  bound,  shows  her  reverence  by  an  unhesi- 
tating assent.  As  to  the  question.  How  shall  we 
be  persuaded  that  it  came  from  God  without  re- 
curring to  a  decree  of  the  Church?  it  is  just  the 
same  as  if  it  were  asked.  How  shall  we  learn  to 
distinguish  light  from  darkness,  white  from  black, 
sweet  from  bitter  ?  Scripture  bears  upon  the  face 
of  it  as  clear  evidence  of  its  truth  as  white  and 
black  do  of  their  color,  sweet  and  bitter  of  their 
taste." 

So  far,  indeed,  Calvin  has  hardly  progressed 
beyond  Luther.  But  he  proceeds  to  ask  how  we 
may  be  certain  of  this  divine  origin  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  this  is  his  answer :  "  If  then  we  would 
consult  most  effectually  for  our  consciences,  and 
save  them  from  being  driven  about  in  a  whirl  of 
uncertainty,  from  wavering,  and  even  stumbling 
at  the  smallest  obstacle,  our  conviction  of  the 
truth  of  Scripture  must  be  derived  from  a  higher 
source  than  human  conjectures,  judgments,  or 
reasons;    namely,    the   secret   testimony   of   the 


THE    TESTS    OF    CANONICITY  329 

Spirit."  And  again:  ''For  as  God  alone  can 
properly  bear  witness  to  his  own  words,  so  these 
words  will  not  obtain  full  credit  in  the  hearts  of 
men,  until  they  are  sealed  by  the  inward  testi- 
mony of  the  Spirit.  The  same  Spirit,  therefore, 
who  spoke  by  the  mouth  of  the  prophets,  must 
penetrate  our  hearts,  in  order  to  convince  us 
that  they  faithfully  delivered  the  message  with 
which  they  were  divinely  intrusted."  And  he 
sums  up  the  whole  discussion  in  the  following: 
"  Let  it  therefore  be  held  as  fixed,  that  those  j 
who  are  inwardly  taught  by  the  Holy  Spirit  , 
acquiesce  implicitly  in  the  Scripture;  that  Scrip-  i 
ture  carrying  its  own  evidence  along  with  it, 
deigns  not  to  submit  to  proofs  and  arguments,  but 
owes  the  full  conviction  with  which  we  ought  to 
receive  it  to  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit.  Enlight- 
ened by  him,  we  no  longer  believe,  either  on  our 
own  judgment  or  that  of  others,  that  the  Scrip- 
tures are  from  God;  but,  in  a  way  superior  to 
human  judgment,  feel  perfectly  assured — as  much 
so  as  if  we  beheld  the  divine  image  impressed  on 
it — that  it  came  to  us,  by  the  instrumentality  of 
men,  from  the  very  mouth  of  God."  ^ 

1  Calvin's    "Institutes,"    Book    I.,    chap.    7-      Calvin    Translation 
Society's  ed. 


330  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

It  is  a  fair  corollary  from  this  principle,  though 
Calvin  does  not  formally  draw  it,  that  the  Spirit 
will  say  the  same  thing  to  all  believers,  since  he  is 
the  author  of  truth  and  not  of  falsehood,  of  order 
and  not  of  confusion.  Therefore  a  consensus  of ' 
Christian  experience  and  Christian  conviction ; 
regarding  the  Scriptures  is  to  be  expected,  and 
has  in  fact  been  reached.  In  that  consensus  we 
have  complete  and  satisfactory  attestation  that 
the  books  composing  our  New  Testament  Canon, 
and  those  only,  are  worthy  to  be  received  as  Holy 
Scripture.  The  testimony  of  the  Spirit  to  the 
hearts  of  believers  during  so  many  generations 
cannot  be  wrong.  Criticism  may  say  what  it 
will  about  the  authorship  and  date  of  these  books 
• — and  scholars  are  to  be  jealously  protected  in 
their  right  to  investigate  freely  and  to  print  boldly 
the  results  of  their  work — but,  as  to  the  intrinsic 
quality,  the  divine  origin  and  religious  authority 
of  these  books  we  have  a  rock-based  conviction, 
because  it  is  based  on  the  fact  that  the  same  Spirit 
that  dwelt  in  those  who  wrote  the  books  has 
spoken  in  our  hearts  and  vouches  for  their  divine 
origin  and  power. 

This  has  ever  remained  the  Protestant  doctrine, 
and  wherever  the  doctrine  has  been  officially  de- 


THE   TESTS   OF    CANONICITY 


^3^ 


fined,  it  has  been  in  these  terms  or  their  equiva- 
lent.   The  Belgic  Confession  (1561)  declares: 

Art.  V.  We  receive  all  these  books,  and  these  only, 
as  holy  and  canonical,  for  the  regulation,  foundation, 
and  confirmation  of  our  faith;  believing,  without  any 
doubt,  all  things  contained  in  them,  not  so  much  be- 
cause the  Church  receives  and  approves  them  as  such, 
but  more  especially  because  the  Holy  Ghost  witnesseth 
in  our  hearts  that  they  are  of  God,  whereof  they  carry 
the  evidence  in  themselves.  For  the  very  blind  are 
able  to  perceive  that  the  things  foretold  in  them  are 
fulfilling.' 

To  the  same  purport  exactly  is  the  French  Con- 
fession of  1559: 

Art.  IV.  We  know  these  books  to  be  canonical,  and 
the  sure  rule  of  our  faith,  not  so  much  by  the  common 
accord  and  consent  of  the  Church,  as  by  the  testimony 
and  inward  illumination  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which 
enables  us  to  distinguish  them  from  other  ecclesiastical 
books,  upon  which,  however  useful,  we  cannot  found 
any  articles  of  faith.^ 

The  clearest  and  most  unmistakable  statement 
of  the  doctrine,  however,  is  to  be  found  in  the  first 
chapter  of  the  Westminster  Confession  (1647), 
entitled  '*  Of  the  Holy  Scripture  "  : 

IV.  The  authority  of  the  holy  Scripture,  for  which 
it  ought  to  be  believed  and  obeyed,  dependeth  not  upon 

1  Schaff,   "  Creeds  of   Christendom,"    Vol.    III.,   pp.   386,    387- 
'Ibid.,  Vol.  III.,  p.  361. 


332  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

the  testimony  of  any  man  or  church,  but  wholly  upon 
God  (who  is  truth  itself),  the  Author  thereof;  and 
therefore  it  is  to  be  received,  because  it  is  the  word  of 
God. 

V.  We  may  be  moved  and  induced  by  the  testimony 
of  the  Church  to  an  high  and  reverent  esteem  of  the 
holy  Scripture;  and  the  heavenliness  of  the  matter,  the 
efficacy  of  the  doctrine,  the  majesty  of  the  style,  the 
consent  of  all  the  parts,  the  scope  of  the  whole  (which 
is  to  give  all  glory  to  God),  the  full  discovery  it  makes 
of  the  only  way  of  man's  salvation,  the  many  other  in- 
comparable excellencies,  and  the  entire  perfection 
thereof,  are  arguments  whereby  it  doth  abundantly 
evidence  itself  to  be  the  word  of  God;  yet,  notwith- 
standing, our  full  persuasion  and  assurance  of  the  in- 
fallible truth  and  divine  authority  thereof,  is  from  the 
inward  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  bearing  witness  by  and 
with  the  word  in  our  hearts/ 

But  it  may  be  asked,  Does  this  doctrine  of  a 
consensus  of  Christian  experience  impose  an  obH- 
gation  on  every  believer  to  accept  the  Canon  of 
the  New  Testament,  even  if  he  feels  personal 
doubt  or  objection  in  the  case  of  some  book  or 
books?  In  other  words.  Is  the  individual  Chris- 
tian's right  and  duty  of  private  judgment  abro- 
gated by  the  belief  of  the  majority?  The  ques- 
tion is  pertinent,  and  deserves  a  candid  answer. 
And  that  answer  can  only  be,  No.  Nothing  can 
relieve  each  believer  of  the  duty  of  private  judg- 

^Ibid.,  Vol.  III.,  pp.  602,  603. 


THE    TESTS    OF    CANONICITY  333 

ment,  no  power  can  take  from  him  the  right,  for 
to  his  own  Master  each  of  his  servants  must  stand 
or  fall.  The  voice  of  the  Spirit  in  my  own  heart 
is  the  only  voice  that  can  convince  me.  Unless  a 
book  appeals  to  my  soul  as  divine  in  its  origin 
and  authority,  nothing  can  convince  me  that  it  is 
divine.  That  every  believer  has  a  right  to  say, 
nay,  it  is  his  dut}^  to  say  it,  and  to  die  for  it,  if 
need  be.  But  many  well-meaning  Christians 
have  mistaken  some  other  voice  for  a  voice  of 
the  Spirit.  We  do  well  to  cultivate  a  meek  and 
quiet  spirit,  therefore,  and  to  compare  our  ex- 
perience and  convictions  with  those  of  others,  lest 
we  be  misled  into  error,  instead  of  led  into  truth. 
Every  believer  of  necessity  will  have  his  own 
private  Canon  of  Scripture.  By  that  is  not  meant 
that  he  will  dogmatically  exclude  any  book  of 
the  present  Canon  or  add  any  book  that  is  not 
there.  But  not  every  book  of  the  Canon  makes 
an  equal  appeal  to  every  believer;  the  voice  of 
the  Spirit  attests  to  each  of  us  the  divine  quality 
of  some  books  more  clearly  than  others.  If  we 
were  to  be  quite  honest,  probably  all  of  us  would 
confess  that  there  are  some  books  that  we  read 
infrequently,  and  others  perhaps  not  at  all,  while 
of  some  we  never  tire.    We  might  even  say  that 


334  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

we  had  received  more  spiritual  profit  and  edifica- 
tion in  Christian  character  from  the  "  Pilgrim's 
Progress  "  or  the  "  The  Imitation  of  Christ  "  than 
from  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  if  we  were  quite  candid 
and  outspoken.  Luther,  who  was  given  to  strong 
statements,  said  that  if  a  man  had  the  fourth 
Gospel  and  Romans,  with  First  Peter  and  First 
John,  it  would  not  matter  if  he  had  no  other  book 
of  the  New  Testament.  We  each  have  our  list, 
different  from  Luther's,  perhaps  no  two  exactly 
agreeing,  of  favorite  books.  Those  are  our 
private  Canon.  For  our  real  Canon  is  what  we 
know  and  rightly  appreciate  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  a  good  many  who  pride  themselves  on 
their  orthodox  views  regarding  the  Scriptures 
could  carry  their  real  Canon  in  their  vest  pockets 
and  still  have  ample  room  for  a  watch  or  a  roll 
of  greenbacks. 


XI 

CONCLUSION 


XI 


OUR  investigation  is  completed.  The  reader 
has  in  his  possession  all  the  material  facts 
relating  to  the  history  of  the  Canon,  together 
with  the  inferences  that  may  be  rationally  drawn 
from  them.  He  has  been  able  to  test  for  himself 
rigorously  every  proposed  inference,  and  he  may, 
if  he  choose,  verify  the  accuracy  of  every  state- 
ment of  fact.  It  remains  only  to  summarize, 
briefly  and  clearly,  the  steps  in  the  process  and 
the  conclusions  reached. 

1.  Our  point  of  departure  is  the  existence 
among  the  Jews,  at  the  beginning  of  the  Christian 
era,  of  the  synagogue  worship  and  the  idea  of  a 
Canon  of  Scripture.  That  this  Canon  may  not 
have  been  absolutely  fixed,  or  that  their  ideas 
about  it  may  not  have  been  accepted  by  Chris- 
tians, without  some  modification,  are  matters  of 
detail  that  in  no  wise  affect  the  material  fact.  The 
law  and  the  prophets  were  read  every  Sabbath  in 
every  synagogue,  and  were  accepted  as  Scrip- 
tures of  divine  origin  and  authority. 

2.  It  was  to  Jews,  with  such  training  and  hav- 

w  337 


338  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

ing  such  ideas,  that  the  gospel  was  first  preached, 
and  it  was  of  such  Jews  that  the  first  Christian 
churches  were  largely  composed.  In  their  as- 
semblies as  Christians  they  naturally  continued 
their  Jewish  customs — the  law  and  the  prophets 
were  continually  read.  At  the  same  time  an  oral 
gospel  was  as  continually  proclaimed.  To  the 
Christian  believer  the  words  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
were  of  supreme  authority,  and  the  Jewish  Scrip- 
tures were  valued  largely  because  they  testified 
of  him.  That  this  conception  of  relative  authority 
everywhere  prevailed,  nobody  can  doubt  who  has 
read  attentively  the  New  Testament  documents. 
Jesus  is  the  Way,  the  Truth,  the  Life.  He  speaks 
"  as  one  having  authority,  and  not  as  their 
scribes."  In  him  were  hid  all  the  treasures  of 
wisdom.  And  not  Paul  only,  but  all  the  apostles, 
made  continual  use  of  the  method  that  Philip  pur- 
sued with  the  eunuch,  when  "  beginning  from 
this  Scripture,"  the  fifty-third  chapter  of  Isaiah, 
"  he  preached  unto  him  Jesus."  The  preaching 
of  Peter  as  recorded  in  the  Acts,  and  the  same 
apostle's  use  of  the  Old  Testament  in  his  writings, 
the  argument  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  all 
follow  the  same  principle.  To  the  apostles  the 
significance  of  the  Old  Testament  was  that  it 


CONCLUSION  339 

everywhere  confirmed  their  contention  that  Jesus 
was  the  Messiah. 

3.  The  apostles  were  the  living  embodiment  of 
the  teachings  of  Jesus,  witnesses  of  his  resurrec- 
tion, and  proclaimers  of  the  truth  he  had  taught. 
Therefore,  when  they  began  to  write  letters  to 
the  churches,  their  words  were  received  as  the 
words  of  the  Lord.  Paul,  at  least,  did  not  hesi- 
tate to  claim  that  he  wrote  under  the  direction  of 
the  Spirit  of  Christ.  It  would  necessarily  follow 
that  such  letters  would  be  jealously  preserved,  as 
a  treasure  beyond  price,  by  the  churches  to  which 
they  were  sent. 

4.  But  these  letters  were  written  to  be  read 
publicly  at  the  meetings  of  the  churches.  Some 
of  them  were  addressed  to  groups  of  churches, 
each  of  which  would  certainly  keep  a  copy.  They 
would  be  read,  not  once  or  twice,  but  many  times. 
Gradually  there  would  be  interchange  of  copies, 
and  a  growing  desire  in  each  church  to  have  as 
complete  a  collection  as  possible.  In  this  way,  a 
collection  of  Paul's  Epistles  was  probably  in  ex- 
istence in  the  churches,  both  East  and  West,  by 
the  beginning  of  the  second  century,  for  Igna- 
tius and  Polycarp  show  acquaintance  with  nearly 
every  one  of  them,  even  if  they  do  not  formally 


-r 


340  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

quote  from  them.  Even  Clement  and  the  Di- 
dache,  in  the  last  decade  of  the  first  century,  show 
almost  as  extensive  knowledge  of  them. 

5.  The  Gospels  do  not  seem  to  have  been 
written  for  public  reading,  but  rather  for  private 
use.  But  the  authority  always  attributed  to  the 
words  of  Jesus  would  naturally  lead  to  their  being 
read  in  the  churches  almost  as  soon  as  they  were 
published.  The  same  tendency  that  led  to  the 
making  of  collections  of  Paul's  Epistles  would 
lead  the  churches  to  make  collections  of  the  Gos- 
pels. In  Justin's  time  we  have  the  first  mention 
of  the  public  reading  of  the  Gospels,  and  he  men- 
tions it  as  an  established  custom,  for  the  growth 
of  which  we  must  allow  a  full  generation.  This 
carries  back  the  collection  and  reading  of  the 
Gospels  to  the  first  quarter  of  the  second  century, 
and  it  may  well  have  begun  considerably  earlier. 

6.  Only  one  hypothesis  can  explain  this  action 
of  the  churches.  They  would  never  have  troubled 
themselves  to  preserve  and  collect,  they  would 
never  have  publicly  read  in  their  assemblies  for 
worship,  writings  that  they  did  not  believe  to  be 
of  divine  origin  and  to  possess  divine  authority. 
This  belief  was  so  much  a  matter  of  course  with 
them  that  it  never  occurred  to  them  to  assert  it 


CONCLUSION 


341 


in  so  many  words.  It  is  the  tacit  assumption  that 
underHes  all  the  citations  of  the  earliest  Fathers, 
and  gives  to  such  citations  their  whole  signifi- 
cance. The  rise  of  the  heretical  sects  in  the 
second  century  furnished  an  occasion  for  the 
formal  assertion  of  the  divine  authority  of  the 
apostolic  writings,  and  from  this  time  on  we  find 
them  definitely  quoted  as  Scripture.  They  were 
now  appealed  to  as  the  decisive  confirmation  of 
truth  and  the  decisive  condemnation  of  error. 

7.  Heresy  also  hastened  the  decision  of  the 
churches  concerning  the  books  that  should  be  re- 
garded as  Scripture.  Up  to  this  time  there  had 
been  collections,  but  no  collection.  That  is  to  say, 
definite  ideas  regarding  the  exact  limits  of  the 
Canon  cannot  be  discovered  until  the  latter  dec- 
ades of  the  second  century.  Many  books  were 
now  in  circulation,  claiming  apostolic  origin  and 
authority.  Some  of  these  were  read  in  all  the 
churches,  some  were  read  in  most  of  the  churches, 
some  were  read  in  comparatively  few  churches. 
By  his  rejection  of  all  books  save  the  Epistles  of 
Paul  and  the  Gospel  of  Luke,  and  these  in  a  form 
more  or  less  incomplete  and  mutilated,  Marcion 
compelled  the  Catholic  churches  to  define  their 
latent    ideas    about    the    Scriptures,    assert    the 


342 


OUR    NEW   TESTAMENT 


authority  of  some  of  the  books  that  he  had  re- 
jected, and  decide  whether  others  also  should  be 
accepted.  The  insistence  by  the  Montanists  on 
the  continuous  gift  of  inspiration  and  prophecy 
led  the  Church  to  emphasize  the  final  authority 
of  the  apostolic  writings  as  a  rule  of  faith.  The 
question  of  the  Canon  would  have  forced  itself  on 
the  Church  sooner  or  later,  if  there  had  been  no 
heresy,  but  heresy  insured  its  consideration 
sooner. 

8.  In  the  last  quarter  of  the  second  century  we 
begin  to  find  evidence  of  a  definite  decision  of  this 
question.  In  the  Muratorian  Canon  and  in  the 
writings  of  Irenseus  and  Tertullian,  we  discover 
tolerably  clear  proof  of  the  universal  acceptance 

/  as  Scripture  of  twenty  books  that  claim  apostolic 
origin  and  authority — the  so-called  Provisional 
Canon — consisting  of  the  four  Gospels,  thirteen 
Epistles  of  Paul,  the  Acts,  First  John  and  First 
Peter.  At  the  same  time,  there  are  many  other 
books  that  have  an  acceptance  more  or  less  wide — 
the  remaining  seven  of  our  present  Canon,  and  an 
undefined  number  of  others,  of  which  the  most 
prominent  are  the  Epistles  of  Clement,  the  Epistle 
of  Barnabas,  and  the  Shepherd. 

9.  About  this  time  also  we  can  trace  in  the  East 


CONCLUSION  343 

the  making  of  a  collection  of  epistles  supple- 
mentary to  the  Pauline,  which  came  to  be  known 
as  the  Catholic  Epistles.  Alexandria  was  the 
center  of  this  process,  which  was  definitely  com- 
pleted before  the  close  of  the  second  century.  The 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  also  definitely  ac- 
cepted there,  not  at  first  as  Pauline,  but  as  "  apos- 
tolic," that  is,  coming  from  some  one  of  the 
immediate  followers  and  companions  of  the  apos- 
tles. Gradually  the  tradition  of  a  Pauline  author- 
ship prevailed  in  the  East.  In  the  West,  on  the 
contrary,  where  in  the  Epistle  of  Clement  we  have 
the  earliest  attestation  of  Hebrews,  the  tradition 
of  a  non-Pauline  authorship  lingered  to  the  very 
last,  being  revived  even  during  the  Middle  Ages, 
and  caused  this  to  be  the  last  book  accepted. 

10.  A  similar  doubt  concerning  the  Apocalypse 
lingered  in  the  East,  while  the  West  gave  it  a 
fairly  early  acceptance  in  the  second  century. 
This  Eastern  opposition  to  this  book  was  as 
slowly  overcome  as  was  the  Western  to  He- 
brews, and  a  small  part  of  the  Eastern  Church 
never  did  accept  the  Apocalypse,  as  is  shown  by  its 
absence  from  the  Syrian  and  Egyptian  versions. 
Even  in  the  West,  the  book  was  generally  placed 
last  in  the  MSS  and  versions. 


A 


344  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

II.  No  one  church  or  region  had  a  predomi- 
nant influence  in  the  formation,  of  the  Canon. 
While  the  Canon  was  the  result  of  the  influence 
and  experience  of  the  whole  Church,  if  any  one 
region  was  more  potent  than  another  it  was 
Alexandria,  which  bred  great  scholars  and  bish- 
ops in  the  centuries  when  Rome  failed  to  produce 
a  single  man  above  mediocrity.  It  would  be  un- 
historical  to  say  that  Alexandria  made  the  Canon, 
precisely  as  it  is  unhistorical  to  say  that  Rome 
made  it — with  this  difference,  however,  that 
enough  evidence  is  producible  to  make  the  former 
proposition  seem  plausible  to  the  untrained  in 
historical  research,  while  for  the  latter  statement 
not  one  smallest  tittle  of  proof  can  be  found  in 
the  whole  range  of  patristic  literature.  Of  the 
seven  books  finally  added  to  the  twenty  of  the 
Provisional  Canon,  six  are  definitely  due  to  the 
initiative  and  influence  of  Alexandria.  It  was  her 
insistence  on  Hebrews  that  finally  overcame  the 
doubts  of  the  West.  It  was  the  acceptance  of  the 
'*  seven  Catholic  Epistles  "  at  Alexandria,  from 
the  time  of  Clement,  that  at  length  induced  the 
West  to  accept  James,  Jude,  Second  and  Third 
John,  and  above  all  Second  Peter.  In  one  point 
only  was  the  West  more  potent  than  the  East,  in 


CONCLUSION 


345 


securing  the  addition  to  the  Canon  of  the  Apoca- 
lypse. If  Alexandria  had  been  left  utterly  to  her- 
self, the  Canon  would  probably  have  lacked  that 
book.  We  cannot,  however,  trace  any  direct 
agency  of  the  Church  of  Rome  in  adding  to  the  ^ 
Canon  a  book  that  Luther  called  a  "  dumb 
prophecy,"  that  Zwingli  said  "  is  not  a  book  of  the 
Canon,"  that  Calvin  omitted  altogether  from  his 
commentaries. 

12.  At  the  end  of  the  fourth  century  we  find  a 
virtually  complete  agreement  of  the  churches. 
East  and  West,  regarding  the  Canon.  Athana- 
sius  and  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  for  the  East,  Augus- 
tine and  Jerome  for  the  West,  speak  with  one 
voice,  and  the  books  of  which  all  testify  as  those 
received  in  the  churches  are  the  books  of  our 
present  Canon.  The  first  of  them  to  speak  is 
Athanasius,  so  that  the  earliest  list  of  canonical 
books  that  exactly  agrees  with  our  own  is  Alex- 
andrine and  belongs  to  the  year  367.  No  bishop 
of  the  Roman  Church  is  reported  to  have  made 
any  utterance  on  the  Canon  before  Innocent  I, 
416.  And  yet  we  are  gravely  assured  that  our 
Canon  is  Roman,  and  that  if  Alexandria  had 
had  the  making  of  it,  we  should  have  a  very  dif- 
ferent Canon !    The  conclusion  warranted  by  the 


34^  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

facts  would  appear  to  be  this :  of  all  the  Patri- 
archal churches,  Rome  had  the  least  influence  in 
the  formation  of  the  Canon. 

13.  This  unanimity  in  the  Church  was  not 
produced  by  ecclesiastical  authority.  In  the  early 
stages  of  the  process  there  is  little  evidence  of 
episcopal  interference,  no  evidence  of  episcopal 
predominance.  The  bishops,  we  are  entitled  to 
conclude,  had  the  same  influence  in  the  matter  of 
the  Canon  that  they  had  in  the  settlement  of  all 
ecclesiastical  questions,  and  no  more.  The  de- 
cision of  the  Church  was  usually  expressed 
through  its  official  head,  the  bishop,  but  it  was 
always  necessary  that  his  decision  should  be 
approved  by  at  least  a  majority  of  the  whole 
Church.  If  episcopal  agency  in  the  formation 
of  the  Canon  were  much  more  in  evidence  than 
it  actually  is,  we  should  still  be  compelled  to  view 
this  agency  as  only  the  orderly  way  in  which  the 
inward  conviction  of  the  whole  Church  found 
formal  expression.  In  the  first  four  centuries, 
we  know  that  episcopal  pov\rer  was  no  despotism. 
Even  had  each  bishop  been  a  despot,  there  was 
no  concert  of  action,  and  the  problem  of  account- 
ing for  the  ultimate  unanimity  of  the  decision 
would  be  little  helped  toward  solution  by  accepting 


CONCLUSION  347 

a  hypothesis  of  episcopal  omnipotence.     Nor  was 
there  any  conciHar  action,  save  the  doubly  doubt- 
ful case  of  Laodicea,  preceding  the  attainment  of 
unanimity.     The  synod  of  Carthage  assumes  the 
existence   of   certain    '*  canonical "   books,   cata- 
logues them,  and  declares  that  no  others  shall  be 
read  in  the  churches.     Popes  and  councils  only 
confirm  the  Canon  already  accepted  with  virtual 
unanimity.    So  far  as  the  New  Testament  is  con- 
cerned, that  is  true  even  of  the  Council  of  Trent. 
14.  This  tracing  of  the  historic  evolution  of  the 
Canon  provides  no  basis  for  its  acceptance  by  a 
Protestant.    It  is  a  historical  fact  that  we  actually i 
receive    our    New   Testament   Canon    from   the 
Catholic  Church  of  the  first  four  centuries.     But 
we  do  not  continue  to  hold  the  Canon  because  1 
the  Catholic  Church  formed  it,  for  the  dicta  of ; 
that  Church  have  no  authority  for  us.     We  hold  j 
the  Canon  because  the  same  considerations  that 
led  the  Catholic  Church  to  make  this  Canon  are' 
still  powerful  to  convince  us  that  these  books! 
and  no  others  should  be  received  as  the  word  of 
God.     And  yet  we  cannot  conclude,  with  West-  j 
cott  and  others,  that  the  history  of  the  Canon  j 
proves  the  Church  to  have  been  guided  in  its 
selection  of  books  by  the  Holy  Spirit.     There  is 


348  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

no  rational  justification  for  such  a  conclusion, 
save  to  a  Catholic.  For  there  was  equal  una- 
nimity in  the  development  of  a  hierarchy,  of  an 
elaborate  system  of  ritual,  of  the  doctrine  of 
sacramental  grace — of  all,  in  a  word,  that  was 
Catholic,  as  opposed  to  Protestant  and  evangeli- 
cal. Shall  we  conclude  that  the  Spirit  of  God 
directed  these  developments  also?  Rome  un- 
hesitatingly answers,  Yes.  But  can  we  answer. 
Yes  ?  And  if  not,  by  what  criterion  may  we  decide 
that  unanimity  regarding  the  Canon  proves  the 
guidance  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  while  unanimity 
in  the  development  of  a  hierarchy  proves  nothing 
of  the  sort? 

.,     15.  The  Reformers  first  stated  the  true  basis  on 
•which  the  authority  of  the  Canon  rests:   the  per- 
ception by  the  believer,  through  the  aid  of  the 
iHoly  Spirit,  that  there  is  a  divine  quality,  and 
1  hence  a  divine  authority,   in  the  books  of  the 
Canon.     The  question  used  to  be  whether  there 
was  any  human  element  in  the  Scriptures;    the 
question  now  is,  whether  there  is  anything  divine 
in  them.    And  not  all  the  Fathers  and  not  all  the 
Councils  that  the  Church  has  ever  known  can 
give  to  the  longing  heart  such  assurance  of  the 
divine  origin  and  divine  authority  of  the  New 


CONCLUSION 


349 


Testament  as  the  book  itself  gives  to  one  who  has 
been  born  again  of  the  Spirit  of  God.    One  does 
not  more  certainly   recognize  the  voice  of  his 
friend,  calling  to  him  out  of  the  dark,  than  a  child 
of  God  knows  his  Father's  voice  when  he  reads 
his   word.      The   Holy    Spirit   in   the   believer's 
heart  confirms  what  the  same  Holy  Spirit  has 
guided  apostles  and  others  to  write.     Like  all 
other  perceptions,  this  is  an  ultimate  fact,  that 
can  neither  be  analyzed  nor  proved,  but  must  be 
experienced.      He   who   has   experienced   it  canj 
never  doubt  either  its  reality  or  its  truth.     Thisi 
perception  may  be  clearer  in  some  believers  than ' 
in  others;    it  may  be  clearer  in  regard  to  some 
books  than  with  others.     But  the  general  con-i 
sensus   of   experience   throughout   Christendom,! 
and  that  not  for  a  single  generation,  but  for  age 
after  age,  ought  to  be  considered  decisive  regard- 
ing the  quality  of  a  book. 

1 6.  It  was  this  perception  of  a  divine  quality  in 
a  book  that  gave  it  place  in  the  Canon  in  the  first 
instance,  and  has  kept  it  there  permanently.  The 
voice  of  a  majority  of  churches  in  some  region, 
or  for  a  limited  time,  may  have  placed  a  book 
in  the  Canon  that  ultimately  failed  to  make  good 
its  title  to  canonicity.    Such  was  the  case,  for  ex- 


350  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

ample,  with  the  Shepherd.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  voice  of  a  majority  of  churches  in  some  re- 
gion, or  for  a  Hmited  time,  may  have  excluded 
from  the  Canon  a  book  that  ultimately  was  able 
to  make  good  its  claim  to  canonicity.  Such  was 
the  case  with  the  Apocalypse.  The  decisive  fac- 
tor, in  the  long  run,  in  the  case  of  every  book 
that  claimed  to  be  Scripture  was  the  consensus  of 
Christian  experience  in  the  whole  Church,  and 
for  more  than  a  single  generation,  that  it  pos- 
sessed an  exceptional  divine  quality,  which  fitted 
it  "  for  teaching,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for 
instruction  which  is  in  righteousness." 

17.  Therefore,  and  finally,  the  Canon  of  the 
New  Testament  was  not  ''  closed  "  by  ecclesias- 
tical authority.  The  phrase  *'  closed  Canon  "  is 
not  a  locution  or  idea  of  the  Fathers,  but  of 
modern  writers.  It  were  rash  to  assert  that  in 
the  vast  range  of  patristic  literature  anything  has 
never  been  said,  but  the  learned  writers  who  have 
been  delving  into  the  Fathers  for  years  have  not 
found  and  cited  a  single  passage  where  a  Father 
speaks  of  a  "  closed  "  Canon.  The  Canon  never 
was  closed,  except  in  the  sense  that  a  time  came 
when  production  ceased  of  books  that  the  Chris- 
tian consciousness  recognized  as  belonging  in  the 


CONCLUSION  351 

same  class  with  those  that  constitute  the  Canon. 
At  first  some  thought  there  were  other  books  of 
the  same  quahty  and  value,  and  they  were  read  in 
the  churches  and  cited  as  Scripture;  then  men 
began  to  doubt,  and  they  were  believed  to  be 
edifying  books,  but  not  canonical;  long  since 
they  ceased  even  to  edify. 

If  there  was  ever  a  book,  or  collection  of  books, 
that  could  be  accurately  described  as  the  survival 
of  the  fittest,  then  the  New  Testament  is  such  a 
book.  And  yet  this  gradual  process  of  testing  and 
winnowing,  extending  over  a  period  of  three  cen- 
turies, has  been  called  an  ''  arbitrary  selection." 
If  there  is  any  phrase  in  our  language  that 
would  be  less  true  to  the  historic  fact,  one  would 
be  glad  to  know  what  it  is.  Julicher  is  little  in- 
clined to  any  opinion  that  is  orthodox  or  tra- 
ditional, but  on  this  point  he  says :  "  A  gradual 
process  made  the  books  of  the  New  Testament 
the  most  sacred  writings  of  Christendom.  They 
did  not  attain  this  position  immediately  upon  their 
completion ;  but  it  would  be  equally  untrue  to  sup- 
pose that  on  a  given  day  the  decision  of  a  majority 
in  the  synod  transformed  them  from  ordinary 
books  into  divine  records.  The  New  Testament 
Canon  is  the  result  of  a  long-continued  process. 


35^  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

the  first  phases  of  which  we  have  to  reconstruct 
by  hypothesis,  since  direct  testimony  from  such 
distant  antiquity  is  not  forthcoming.  One  thing 
is  certain :  before  a  book  was  canonized  it  must 
have  been  tenderly  and  highly  prized.  And  more- 
over, this  love  and  high  esteem  must  have 
been  very  widely  spread  if  canonization  not  only 
aroused  no  opposition,  but  was  nowhere  con- 
sidered as  an  innovation."  ^ 

And  where  is  the  man  who  will  now  allege — 
and  prove — that  this  consensus  of  the  Christian 
experience  of  nineteen  centuries  has  made  any 
serious  error?  Of  the  books  that  were  finally 
dropped  from  the  Canon,  is  there  one  that  any 
sober  man  of  any  serious  scholarly  attainments 
or  recognized  literary  taste  or  spiritual  discern- 
ment, would  have  restored?  Not  the  Shepherd, 
surely,  with  its  continual  smirk  of  sex-conscious- 
ness and  its  silly  allegorical  twaddle.  Hardly  the 
Epistle  of  Clement,  for  an  age  that  stumbles  over 
the  Gadarene  pigs  would  fall  down  altogether  if 
asked  to  believe  the  fable  of  the  phoenix.  Com- 
mentators to-day  find  it  hard  enough  to  accept 
some  of  Paul's  Old  Testament  exegesis;  what 
w^ould  they  do  if  they  must  accept  and  justify  the 

^  Introduction,  p.  476. 


CONCLUSION 


353 


utter  absurdities  of  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas  ?  And 
these  are  confessedly  the  best  of  the  Notha  of 
Eusebius ;  if  these  cannot  make  a  valid  claim  to 
canonicity,  no  other  Christian  writing  of  an- 
tiquity can. 

On  the  other  hand,  what  book  is  there  in  our 
present  Canon  for  the  exclusion  of  which  con- 
vincing reasons  can  be  given?  Not  reasons  that 
might  convince  here  and  there  a  Christian,  but 
reasons  that  would  or  should  convince  the  church 
at  large?  It  is  true  that  we  do  not  all  agree 
in  our  estimate  of  the  relative  value  of  the  canoni- 
cal books.  For  myself,  the  Epistle  of  Jude  and 
Second  and  Third  John  weigh  little.  My  per-  / 
ception  of  any  divine  quality  in  them  is  weak,  if 
not  entirely  lacking.  I  do  not  derive  any  con- 
siderable amount  of  spiritual  instruction  or  com- 
fort from  them.  Probably  many  readers  could 
make  a  similar  confession,  naming  other  books, 
possibly,  than  these.  But  I  would  not,  therefore, 
vote  to  remove  these  books  from  the  Canon,  for, 
unlike  Luther,  I  do  not  regard  my  perceptions 
and  my  limited  experience  as  the  norm  for  all 
others.  If  the  books  in  question  do  not  fully  ap- 
prove themselves  to  me  as  divine,  it  is  just  possible 
that  the  defect  may  be  in  the  dulness  of  my  spirit- 


354  OUR    NEW   TESTAMENT 

ual  apprehension,  not  in  the  books.  They  have 
approved  themselves  to  multitudes  of  other  Chris- 
tians. All  of  us  are  wiser  than  any  one  of  us. 
Wherefore,  I  am  sorry  that  I  cannot  find  in  these 
books  what  others  have  found  there,  and  am  con- 
vinced that  such  humility  is  good  for  me,  and 
should  be  cultivated,  rather  than  the  arrogance 
of  spirit  that  would  reject  as  worthless  to  anybody 
that  which  I  do  not  find  worthful  to  myself. 

The  objection  may  be  made  to  this  interpre- 
tation of  the  formation  of  the  Canon — and  that 
it  is  interpretation,  as  well  as  history,  is  admitted : 
any  treatment  of  the  formation  of  the  Canon  must 
be  both — that  it  leaves  too  much  to  subjective 
impressions.  The  phrases  ''  Christian  conscious- 
ness "  and  "  Christian  experience  "  connote  ideas 
that  are  distrusted  by  many  Christians,  and  "  con- 
sensus "  is  also  a  word  of  suspicious  vagueness, 
as  it  seems  to  many.  Any  test  that  is  subjective 
is  thought  to  be  so  far  uncertain.  And  if  this  in- 
terpretation answers  some  questions,  it  suggests 
others:  If  the  consensus  of  Christian  experience 
has  settled  the  Canon,  does  it  not  logically  follow 
that  a  different  consensus  of  Christian  experience 
might  unsettle  it?  If  books  became  canonical 
because  all  Christians  perceived  in  them  a  divine 


CONCLUSION  355 

quality,  does  it  not  follow  that  if  all  Christians 
should  cease  to  perceive  any  divine  quality  in  a 
book,  it  must  be  dropped  from  the  Canon  ?  And 
if  these  things  are  fairly  implied  in  the  above 
theory  of  the  Canon,  are  we  not  left  with  a  very 
uncertain  foundation  for  our  Christian  faith  ? 

It  may  be  confidently  affirmed  that,  the  longer 
and  the  more  carefully  the  whole  subject  is  con- 
sidered, the  less  serious  this  objection  will  seem 
to  anybody,  while  for  most  Christians  it  v/ill  van- 
ish altogether. 

In  the  first  place,  the  true  foundation  of  a  ^ 
Christian's  faith  is  not  a  book,  but  a  person.  Not 
the  New  Testament,  but  Jesus  Christ,  is  the 
corner-stone  upon  which  we  are  built.  Every 
Christian  ought  to  settle  that  point  first  of  all, 
and,  with  Paul,  know  whom  (not  what)  he  has 
believed.  Jesus  himself  wrote  nothing.  If  all 
his  apostles  had  done  likewise,  and  several  genera- 
tions had  passed  before  the  oral  gospel  was  re- 
duced to  writing,  we  should  still  have  had  enough 
knowledge  of  the  life  and  teaching  of  Jesus  to 
make  men  believers  in  him.  That  we  should  be 
vastly  poorer  than  we  are,  without  the  New  Tes- 
tament, is  true ;  that  Christianity  would  have  been 
bankrupt  without  its  apostolic  writings,   is  un- 


356  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENt 

thinkable.  There  would  still  be  a  Christ  of  his- 
tory, as  well  as  a  Christ  of  faith,  if  there  had 
never  been  a  New  Testament.  No  man  has  his 
faith  resting  on  a  sure  foundation,  until  he  not 
merely  assents  to  this,  but  fully  realizes  it. 

Secondly,  the  Canon  must  be  justified  either  by 
external  or  by  internal  authority.  It  is  not  possi- 
ble to  justify  it  on  the  basis  of  external  authority. 
Catholics  can  accept  the  word  of  the  Church  that 
these  books  and  no  others  are  canonical,  but  not 
so  Protestants.  The  word  of  the  Church  is  worth- 
less to  us,  save  in  the  way  of  ordinary  historic  tes- 
timony. And  apostolic  authority,  in  which  some 
of  us  would  take  refuge,  is  equally  unavailing  for 
the  justification  of  our  Canon  as  it  exists.  A 
canon  might  be  constructed,  for  which  apostolic 
authority  might  be  claimed,  but  it  would  not  be 
our  Canon.  Four  books,  at  least,  of  the  present 
Canon  were  written  by  men  who  were  not  apos- 
tles :  the  Gospels  of  Mark  and  Luke,  the  Acts,  and 
Hebrews.  Nor  can  we  be  sure  that  the  writers  of 
these  books  did  their  work  under  apostolic  sanc- 
tion and  authority.  Even  the  traditions  of  the 
second  and  third  centuries  that  try  to  establish  a 
constructive  "apostolic"  character  for  these  books, 
do  not  assert  that  Mark  and  Luke  wrote  with 


CONCLUSION  357 

the  actual  knowledge  of  Peter  and  Paul,  or  that 
their  writings  were  seen  and  approved  by  these 
apostles.  Besides  these,  the  first  Gospel,  in  its 
present  form,  can  no  longer  be  maintained  to  be 
Matthew's,  save  in  the  sense  that  it  embodies  an 
earlier  work  on  the  discourses  of  our  Lord,  writ- 
ten in  Aramaic  by  Matthew.  Who  wrote  the 
book  in  its  present  form  we  have  not  the  slightest 
information.  Not  to  dwell  on  the  weak  attesta- 
tion of  Second  Peter  as  the  wo-rk  of  that  apostle, 
it  is  perfectly  plain  that  if  apostolicity,  in  any 
real  sense,  be  made  the  test  of  canonicity  our 
Canon  is  hopelessly  discredited. 

Thirdly,  the  subjective  test  is  not  "  dangerous." 
On  the  contrary,  it  is  the  only  safe  criterion  of 
canonicity.  There  is  no  valid  a  priori  objection 
to  be  urged  against  post-apostolic  inspiration  or 
post-apostolic  miracle;  any  objection  that  may  be 
urged  to  either  on  a  priori  grounds  will  be  found 
to  be  equally  valid  against  all  inspiration  and  all 
miracle.  Huxley  has  conceded,  in  behalf  of 
modern  science,  that  the  whole  question  of  in- 
spiration and  miracle  is  not  a  question  of  assump- 
tions, pro  or  con,  but  a  question  of  fact,  to  be 
decided  by  evidence.  And  the  only  convincing 
evidence  for  the  inspiration  of  any  book  is  the 


358  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

character  of  the  book,  the  appeal  that  it  makes  di- 
rectly to  the  spiritually  minded  reader.  The  as- 
sertion of  Paul  that  he  writes  to  the  church  at 
Corinth  under  the  direct  impulse  of  the  Spirit 
could  never  convince  anybody  that  he  really  was 
inspired,  if  the  message  that  he  delivered  did  not 
vouch  for  itself  to  the  reader's  soul  as  coming 
from  the  same  Spirit  that  had  made  him  a  new 
creation.  For  anybody  can  assert  inspiration. 
Emanuel  Swedenborg  said  that  he  was  inspired, 
but  he  was  undoubtedly  deluded.  Joseph  Smith 
said  that  he  was  inspired,  but  he  was  undoubtedly 
an  impostor.  We  could  not  be  sure  that  Paul  was 
neither  an  enthusiast  (as  some  still  claim)  nor 
an  impostor,  but  for  the  quality  that  we  perceive, 
by  the  aid  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  in  his  writings. 
The  Spirit  in  the  believer's  heart  bears  witness 
thus  with  the  Spirit  speaking  through  apostles  and 
prophets  in  the  past,  and  the  witness  is  one.  That 
and  nothing  else  works  conviction  in  us  that  the 
books  of  the  Canon  are  God's  word. 

Fourthly,  no  Christian  need  shrink  from  any 
logical  implication  of  this  test.  If  there  were  any 
other  book  in  existence  that  could  produce  the 
same  universal  conviction  of  its  divine  quality 
that  has  been  produced  on  the  whole  Christian 


CONCLUSION  359 

world  for  nineteen  centuries  by  the  canonical 
books,  it  ought  to  be  in  the  Canon.  And  it  would 
be — nothing  could  keep  it  out.  But  there  is  no 
such  book;  there  never  has  been;  we  may  be 
confident  there  never  will  be.  Even  the  "  Pil-* 
grim's  Progress  "  which  every  Protestant  would 
place  next  to  Scripture,  and  "  The  Imitation  of 
Christ,"  which  every  Catholic  and  some  Protes- 
tants would  give  a  similar  place,  are  only  "  next." 
Nobody  has  ever  ranked  either  on  the  same  plane 
with  the  New  Testament.  On  the  other  hand, 
should  the  time  ever  come  when  the  whole  Chris- 
tian world,  for  successive  generations,  becomes 
convinced  that  any  book  now  in  the  Canon  is 
utterly  lacking  in  divine  quality  and  absolutely 
unfitted  to  instruct  or  comfort  the  saints,  how 
could  such  a  book  be  kept  in  the  Canon?  But 
what  supposition  about  the  future  could  be  more 
wildly  improbable  than  that  there  will  ever  be 
such  a  complete  reversal  of  judgment  about  any 
canonical  book?  In  a  word,  then,  the  objections 
suggested  by  these  logical  implications  of  the  sub- 
jective test  are  purely  academic.  They  have  no 
practical  force,  because  they  apply  to  nothing  that 
has  had  place  in  the  history  of  Christianity,  or 
that    rational    conjecture    can    suggest    for    its 


360  OUR    NEW    TESTAMENT 

future.  If  the  test  is  no  more  "  dangerous  "  than 
this,  we  can  afford  to  smile  at  the  danger. 

Fifthly,  after  all,  whatever  objections,  theoreti- 
cal or  practical,  may  be  made  to  this  subjective 
test,  it  is  the  test  applied  to  the  New  Testament 
by  every  Christian.  Unless  a  book  manifests  to 
us  its  divine  quality,  we  do  not  receive  it  as 
Scripture.  We  do  not,  because  we  cannot.  What- 
ever we  publicly  profess  to  believe  about  the  New 
Testament,  only  those  books  are  Scripture  to  our 
hearts  that  our  hearts  recognize  as  such.  Why 
not  frankly  admit  this,  then,  and  avow  that  since 
this  subjective  test  is  decisive  of  real  canonicity 
for  each  of  us,  it  is  the  true  test  of  formal  canon- 
icity for  all  of  us?  It  is  always  safe  to  tell  the 
truth. 

And  in  making  this  avowal  we  may  be  as  cer- 
tain as  we  are  of  our  own  existence  of  this :  the 
New  Testament  will  never  lose  its  hold  upon 
men's  hearts,  because  to  the  end  of  time  it  will 
speak  of  Him  who  came  from  heaven  to  give  life 
to  men,  and  that  they  might  have  it  abundantly. 
While  there  remains  on  the  earth  one  soul  that 
hungers  and  thirsts  after  righteousness,  he  will 
eagerly  seek  the  words  of  him  who  spake  as 
never  man  spake,  that  he  may  be  filled. 


CONCLUSION  361 

Nevertheless,  there  are  some  who  will  not  be 
able  to  accept  this  theory  until  they  are  fully  as- 
sured that  it  is  orthodox.  I  have  set  it  forth  in 
this  book  because  I  believe  it  to  be  something 
better  than  orthodox — because  I  believe  it  to  be 
true.  But  it  is,  in  fact,  the  orthodoxy  regarding 
the  Canon.  Is  anybody  more  orthodox  than  John 
Calvin  ?  It  has  already  been  shown  at  length  that 
this  is  the  doctrine  of  his  "  Institutes."  Does  any- 
body fear  to  accept  as  sufficiently  orthodox  the 
teaching  of  the  Philadelphia  Confession  ?  Let  us 
hear  the  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter  in  the 
words  of  that  venerable  document: 

We  may  be  moved  and  induced  by  the  testimony  of 
the  Church  to  an  high  and  reverent  esteem  of  the  holy 
Scriptures;  and  the  heavenliness  of  the  matter,  the 
efficacy  of  the  doctrine,  the  majesty  of  the  style,  the 
consent  of  all  the  parts,  the  scope  of  the  whole  {which 
is  to  give  all  the  glory  to  God),  the  full  discovery  it  makes 
of  the  only  way  of  man's  salvation,  and  many  other  in- 
comparable excellencies,  and  entire  perfections  thereof,  are 
arguments  whereby  it  doth  abundantly  evidence  itself  to 
be  the  word  of  God;  yet,  notwithstanding,  our  full  per- 
suasion AND  ASSURANCE  OF  THE  INFALLIBLE  TRUTH,  AND 
DIVINE    AUTHORITY   THEREOF,   IS   FROM   THE   INWARD   WORK   OF 

THE  Holy  Spirit,  bearing  witness  by  and  with  the  word 

IN  OUR  HEARTS. 


APPENDIX 


THE    MURATORIAN    FRAGMENT 

Translated  from  the  emended  text  in  West- 
cott's  "  History  of  the  Canon,"  pp.  543-547. 

...  in  which  things  nevertheless  he  was  present,  and 
so '  he  placed  them.  The  third  book  of  the  Gospel,  the 
one  according  to  Luke,  that  physician  ^  ^^  .g^  .<,. 
wrote  in  his  own  name,  as  it  seemed  good  *  •  *oU  U; 
to  him,  after  the  ascension  of  Christ,  when  Paul  had  as- 
sociated him  with  himself  as  an  assistant  studious  of 
the  law— nevertheless  he  did  not  see  the  Lord  in  the 
flesh— and  accomplished  the  same  as  he  was  able.  So 
also  John,  one  of  the  disciples,  [author  of  the]  fourth  of 
the  Gospels,  began  to  write  from  the  birth  of  John  [the 
Baptist].  At  the  entreaties  of  his  fellow-disciples  and 
bishops,  he  said,  "  Fast  with  me  for  three  days  from 
this,  and  whatever  shall  be  revealed  to  us,  let  us  narrate 
it  to  each  other."  On  the  same  night  it  was  revealed 
to  Andrew,  one  of  the  apostles,  that  John  should  relate 
all  things  in  his  own  name,  while  all  revised  them.  And 
so,  while  different  ideas  are  taught  in  the  various  books 
of  the  Gospels,  yet  there  is  no  difference  in  the  faith 
of  believers,  since  in  all  everything  is  declared  by  one 
superintending  Spirit,  concerning  the  birth,  passion, 
resurrection,    conversation   with   his    disciples,   and   his 

1  The  meaning  probably  is  that  Mark  arranged  the  material  of 
his  Gospel  in  the  order  indicated  by  Peter,  who  was  participant  in  the 
events  narrated. 


366  APPENDIX 

twofold  advent:  the  first  in  the  humiliation  of  con- 
tempt, which  is  past;  the  second  in  the  glory  of  royal 
power,  which  is  to  come.  What  wonder  then  that  John 
so  continually  brings  forward  phrases,  even  in  his 
epistles,  saying  in  his  own  person,  "  What  we  have  seen 
with  our  eyes,  and  heard  with  our  ears,  and  handled 
with  our  hands — these  things  have  we  written."  For  he 
thus  professes  that  he  was  not  only  an  eye-witness  but 
also  a  hearer,  and  besides  a  writer  in  their  order  of  all 
the  wonderful  works  of  the  Lord.  Moreover,  the  Acts 
of  all  the  apostles  were  written  in  one  book.  Luke 
narrated  [this]  to  the  most  excellent  Theophilus,  be- 
cause the  various  events  took  place  in  his  presence,  as 
he  shows  by  omitting  the  martyrdom  of  Peter  and  the 
journey  of  Paul,  when  he  went  from  the  city  [of  Rome] 
to  Spain/  Then  as  to  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  they  them- 
selves declare  to  those  who  are  willing  to  understand, 
from  what  place  and  for  what  reason  they  were  sent. 
First  of  all  he  wrote  to  the  Corinthians,  to  check  heret- 
ical schism;  then  to  the  Galatians,  forbidding  circum- 
cision; then  at  greater  length  to  the  Romans,  on  the 
rule  of  the  Scriptures,^  and  also  to  show  that  Christ  is 
the  Head  of  these,  which  it  is  needful  for  us  to  discuss 
in  detail.'  For  the  blessed  Apostle  Paul  himself,  follow- 
ing the  example  of  his  predecessor,  John,  wrote  by 
name  to  seven  churches  only:  first  to  the  Corinthians, 
second  to  the  Ephesians,  third  to  the  Philippians,  fourth 
to  the  Colossians,  fifth  to  the  Galatians,  sixth  to  the 
Thessalonians,  seventh  to  the  Romans.  Moreover, 
though  he  wrote  a  second  time  to  the  Corinthians  and 
Thessalonians   for   their   correction,    it   is   nevertheless 

*  The  text  is  hopelessly  corrupt  here,  and  only  by  heroic  emen- 
dation can  any  sense  whatever  be  extracted  from  it.  The  above  is 
the   probable   meaning. 

*We  are  to  understand  the  Old  Testament  here. 

'  In  the  treatise  of  which  this  is  a  fragment. 


APPENDIX  367 

shown  that  one  church  is  spread  abroad  through  the 
whole  world,  And  John  too,  in  the  Apocalypse,  though 
he  writes  to  seven  churches,  nevertheless  speaks  to  all. 
Besides  [he  wrote]  one  [letter]  to  Philemon,  and  one 
to  Titus,  and  two  [letters]  to  Timothy,  from  affection 
and  love;  which  are  nevertheless^  hallowed  in  the  es- 
teem of  the  Catholic  Church  and  in  the  ordering  of 
ecclesiastical  discipline.  There  are  also  in  circulation 
a  letter  to  the  Laodiceans,  another  to  the  Alexandrines, 
forged  under  Paul's  name  against  the  heresy  of  Mar- 
cion;  and  several  others  that  cannot  be  received  into 
the  Catholic  Church,  for  it  is  not  fitting  to  mix  gall 
with  honey.  The  Epistle  of  Jude,  however,  and  two  of 
the  above-named  John,  are  received  in  the  Catholic 
[Church]  i""  and  the  Book  of  Wisdom,  written  by  the 
friends  of  Solomon  in  his  honor.  We  receive  also  the 
Apocalypses  of  John  and  Peter,  although  some  among 
us  are  unwilling  to  have  [the  latter]  ^  read  in  the 
Church.  The  Shepherd,  moreover,  Hermas  very  re- 
cently wrote  in  the  city  of  Rome,  in  our  own  times, 
while  his  brother  Pius  was  occupying  the  chair  of  the 
Roman  Church,  and  so  it  is  fitting  that  it  should  be 
read,  indeed,  but  not  publicly  in  church,  neither  among 
the  prophets,  whose  number  is  complete,  nor  among 
the  apostles  to  the  end  of  time.  But  we  receive  noth- 
ing at  all  of  the  writings  of  Arsinous,  or  of  Valentinus, 
or  of  Miltiades.  Those  also  who  wrote  the  new  book 
of  Psalms  for  Marcion,  together  with  Basilides,  founder 
of  the  Asiatic  Cataphrygians.  .  . 

1  The  idea  probably  is :  in  spite  of  their  being  addressed  merely  to 
individuals,  they  have  been  received  as  Scripture  by  the  Church. 

"  Or,  the  meaning  may  be,  "  among  the  catholic  epistles." 

3  This  is  the  translation  favored  by  most,  though  the  text  would 
better  bear  the  rendering:  "to  have  [them]  read,"  thus  making  both 
Apocalypses  doubtful. 


368  APPENDIX 


II 

THE   CANON   OF  EUSEBIUS 

From   his    "  Ecclesiastical    History,"   bk.    iii., 
chap.  25.     2PNF  I  :  155. 

Since  we  are  dealing  with  this  subject,  it  is  proper 
to  sum  up  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament  that 
«M  H)  324  h^ve  already  been  mentioned.  First 
then  must  be  put  the  holy  quaternion 
of  the  Gospels;  following  them  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles. After  this  must  be  reckoned  the  Epistles  of  Paul; 
next  in  order  the  extant  former  Epistle  of  John  and 
likewise  the  Epistle  of  Peter,  must  be  maintained. 
After  them  is  to  be  placed,  if  it  really  seem  proper,  the 
Apocalypse  of  John,  concerning  which  we  shall  give 
the  different  opinions  at  the  proper  time.  These  then 
belong  among  the  accepted  writings  (Homologoumena) . 
Among  the  disputed  writings  (Antilegomena)  which  are 
nevertheless  recognized  by  many,  are  extant  the  so- 
called  Epistle  of  James  and  that  of  Jude,  also  the 
second  Epistle  of  Peter,  and  those  that  are  called  the 
second  and  third  of  John,  whether  they  belong  to  the 
evangelist  or  to  another  person  of  the  same  name. 
Among  the  rejected  writings  (Notha)  must  be  reckoned 
also  the  Acts  of  Paul,  and  the  so-called  Shepherd,  and 
the  Apocalypse  of  Peter,  and  in  addition  to  these  the 
extant  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  and  the  so-called  Teachings 
of  the  Apostles;  and  besides,  as  I  said,  the  Apocalypse 
of  John,  if  it  seem  proper,  which  some,  as  I  said,  reject, 
but  which  others  class  with  the  accepted  books.  And 
among   these   some   have   placed   also   the    Gospel   ac- 


APPENDIX  369 

cording  to  the  Hebrews,  with  which  those  of  the 
Hebrews  that  have  accepted  Christ  are  especially  de- 
lighted. And  all  these  may  be  reckoned  among  the 
disputed  books.  But  we  have  nevertheless  felt  com- 
pelled to  give  a  catalogue  of  those  also,  distinguish- 
ing these  works  which,  according  to  ecclesiastical  tra- 
dition are  true  and  genuine  and  commonly  accepted, 
from  those  others  which,  although  not  canonical  but 
disputed,  are  yet  known  to  ecclesiastical  writers — we 
have  felt  compelled  to  give  this  catalogue  in  order  that 
we  might  be  able  to  know  both  these  works  and  those 
that  are  cited  by  the  heretics  under  the  name  of  the 
apostles,  including  for  instance,  such  books  as  the 
Gospels  of  Peter,  of  Thomas,  of  Matthias,  or  of  any 
other  besides  them,  and  the  Acts  of  Andrew  and  John 
and  the  other  apostles,  which  no  one  belonging  to  the 
succession  of  ecclesiastical  writers  has  deemed  worthy 
of  mention  in  his  writings.  And  further,  the  character 
of  the  style  is  at  variance  with  apostolic  usage,  and 
both  the  thoughts  and  the  purpose  of  the  things  that 
are  related  in  them  are  so  completely  out  of  accord 
with  true  orthodoxy  that  they  clearly  show  themselves 
to  be  the  fictions  of  heretics.  Wherefore  they  are  not  to 
be  placed  even  among  the  rejected  writings,  but  all  of 
them  are  to  be  cast  aside  as  absurd  and  impious. 


Ill 
THE  CANON  OF  CYRIL  OF  JERUSALEM 

From    his    "Catechetical    Lectures."      2PNF 
VII  :  27,  28. 


370  APPENDIX 

Then  of  the  New  Testament  there  are  the  four  Gos- 
pels only,  for  the  rest  have  false  titles  and  are  mis- 
S  5)  "^'SO  chievous.  The  Manichaeans  also  wrote 
a  Gospel  according  to  Thomas,  which 
being  tinctured  with  the  fragrance  of  the  evangelic 
title  corrupts  the  souls  of  the  simple  sort.  Receive  also 
the  Acts  of  the  Twelve  Apostles;  and  in  addition  to 
these  the  seven  Catholic  Epistles  of  James,  Peter,  John, 
and  Jude;  and  as  a  seal  upon  them  all,  and  the  last 
work  of  the  disciples,  the  fourteen  Epistles  of  Paul. 
But  let  the  rest  be  put  aside  in  a  secondary  rank.  And 
whatever  books  are  not  read  in  the  churches,  these  read 
not  even  by  thyself,  as  thou  hast  heard  me  say. 


IV 

THE  CANON  OF  LAODICEA 

2PNF  XIV  :  158,  159. 

Can.  59.  No  private  psalms  nor  any  uncanonical 
books  may  be  read  in  the  church,  but  only  the  canoni- 

21  2)  363  ^^^  books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments. [And  these  are  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament:  four  Gospels,  according  to  Matthew, 
Mark,  Luke,  and  John;  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles;  seven 
Catholic  Epistles;  to  wit,  one  of  James,  two  of  Peter, 
three  of  John,  one  of  Jude;  fourteen  Epistles  of  Paul, 
one  to  the  Romans,  two  to  the  Corinthians,  one  to  the 
Galatians,  one  to  the  Ephesians,  one  to  the  Philippians, 
one  to  the  Colossians,  two  to  the  Thessalonians,  one  to 
the  Hebrews,  two  to  Timothy,  one  to  Titus,  and  one  to 
Philemon.] 


APPENDIX  371 


THE  CANON  OF  ATHANASIUS 

From  his  Festal  Letters,  No.  XXXIX,  a.  d. 
367.     Migne,  XXVL     2PNF  II  :  551   seq. 

I  shall  adopt,  to  commend  my  undertaking,  the  pat- 
tern of  Luke  the  evangelist,  saying  on  my  own  account: 
"  Forasmuch  as  some  have  taken  in  ji  5)  057 
hand "  to  reduce  into  order  for  them- 
selves the  books  termed  apocryphal,  and  to  mix  them  up 
with  the  divinely  inspired  Scripture,  concerning  which 
we  have  been  fully  persuaded,  as  they  who  were  from 
the  beginning  eye-witnesses  and  ministers  of  the  Word, 
delivered  to  the  Fathers;  it  seemed  good  to  me  also, 
having  been  urged  thereto  by  true  brethren,  and  having 
learned  from  the  beginning,  to  set  before  you  the  books 
included  in  the  Canon,  and  handed  down  and  accredited 
as  divine;  to  the  end  that  any  one  who  has  fallen  into 
error  tciay  condemn  those  who  have  led  him  astray; 
and  that  he  who  has  continued  stedfast  in  purity  may 
again  rejoice,  having  these  things  brought  to  his  re- 
membrance. 

Again,  it  is  not  tedious  to  speak  of  the  [books  of  the] 
New  Testament.  These  are,  the  four  Gospels;  accord- 
ing to  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and  John.  Afterwards,  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  Epistles  called  Catholic, 
seven:  viz.,  of  James,  one;  of  Peter,  two;  of  John, 
three;  after  these,  one  of  Jude.  In  addition  there  are 
fourteen  Epistles  of  Paul,  written  in  this  order:  the 
first,  to  the  Romans;  then  two,  to  the  Corinthians; 
after  these,  to  the  Galatians;    next,  to  the  Ephesians; 


372  APPENDIX 

then  to  the  Philippians;  then  to  the  Colossians;  after 
these,  two  to  the  Thessalonians,  and  that  to  the  He- 
brews; and  again,  two  to  Timothy;  one  to  Titus;  and 
lastly,  that  to  Philemon.  And  besides,  the  Revelation 
of  John. 

But  for  greater  exactness  I  add  this  also,  writing  of 
necessity:  that  there  are  other  books  besides  these, 
not  indeed  included  in  the  Canon,  but  appointed  by  the 
Fathers  to  be  read  by  those  who  newly  join  us,  and  who 
wish  for  instruction  in  the  word  of  godliness:  the 
Wisdom  of  Solomon,  and  the  Wisdom  of  Sirach,  and 
Esther,  and  Judith,  and  Tobit,  and  that  which  is  called 
the  Teaching  of  the  Apostles,  and  the  Shepherd.  But 
the  former,  my  brethren,  are  included  in  the  Canon,  the 
latter  being  [merely]  read;  nor  is  there  in  any  place  a 
mention  of  apocryphal  writings.  But  they  are  an  in- 
vention of  heretics,  who  write  them  when  they  choose, 
bestowing  upon  them  their  approbation,  and  assigning 
to  them  a  date,  that  so,  using  them  as  ancient  waitings, 
they  may  find  occasion  to  lead  astray  the  simple. 


VI 


THE  CANON  OF  THE  "  APOSTOLIC  CANONS  " 

Compiled  in  the  latter  half  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tury.    Text  from  ANF  VII  :  505. 

Can.  85.    Let  the  following  books  be  esteemed  vener- 
able and  holy  by  you,  both  of  the  clergy  and  laity.  .  . 
H   1)   375  C^^   ^"^  sacred  books,  that  is,  those  of  the 
New    Covenant,    are    these:     the    four 
Gospels  of  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and  John;    the  four- 
teen Epistles  of  Paul;   two  Epistles  of  Peter;    three  of 


APPENDIX 


Z72> 


John;  one  of  James,  one  of  Jude;  two  Epistles  of  Clem- 
ent; and  the  Constitutions  dedicated  to  you,  the  bishops, 
by  me,  Clement,  in  eight  books;  which  it  is  not  fit  to 
publish  before  all,  because  of  the  mysteries  contained  in 
them;   and  the  Acts  of  us,  the  Apostles. 


VII 

THE    CANON    OF    AMPHILOCHIUS 

This  Canon,  ratified  by  the  Trullan  Council,  is 
in  iambic  verse ;  the  lines,  but  not  the  rhythm,  of 
the  original  are  preserved.  From  Migne,  Patrol. 
Gr.   XXXVII  :  1593. 

a.  2).  380 

Name  to  me  now  the  books  of  the  New  Testament: 

Receive  only  four  Gospels, 

Matthew,  then  Mark,  to  which  Luke 

Being  added  numbers  three,  and  John,  in  time 

Fourth,  but  first  in  height  of  doctrine; 

For  having  known  this  son  of  thunder  I  call 

Him  greatest  in  sounding  the  word  of  God. 

And  receive  also  the  second  book  of  Luke, 

The  general  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 

Add  next  the  vessel  of  honor. 

The  preacher  of  the  Gentiles,  the  apostle 

Paul,  writing  wisely  to  the  churches 

Fourteen  letters.  .  . 

Some  say  that  to  the  Hebrews  is  spurious, 

Not  speaking  wisely,  for  the  grace  is  genuine. 


374 


APPENDIX 


See,  what  remains?   of  the  Catholic  Epistles 
Some  say  there  are  seven,  while  only  three 
Should  be  received,  say  others:    James  one, 
One  of  Peter  and  one  of  John;    but  some 
Three  of  his,  and  besides  these  two 
Of  Peter  receive,  and  Jude  the  seventh. 
The  Apocalypse  of  John  again 
Some  approve,  but  the  most 
Say  it  is  spurious. 


VIII 

THE  CANON  OF  GREGORY  OF  NAZIANZEN 

This  is  from  the  Father's  Poems,  and  is  in 
iambic  verse,  Hke  the  preceding.  From  Migne, 
Patrol.  Gr.  XXXVIII  :  842. 

B.  D.  391 

But  now  number  also  the  new  Mystery: 

Matthew  indeed  wrote  for  the  Hebrews  the  wonderful 

works  of  Christ, 
And  Mark  for  Italy,  Luke  for  Greece, 
John,  the  great  preacher,  for  all,  walking  in  heaven. 
Then   the   acts   of  the   wise   apostles, 
And  fourteen  Epistles  of  Paul, 

And  seven  Catholic  [Epistles],  of  which  James  is  one, 
Two  of  Peter,  three  of  John  again. 
Jude  is  the  seventh.    You  have  all. 
If  there  is  any  beyond  these,  it  is  not  among  the 

genuine. 


APPENDIX  375 

IX 

THE  CANON  OF  JEROME 

From  Letter  LIII,  Ad  Paulinum.    2PNF  VI  : 
loi,  102. 

The  New  Testament  I  will  briefly  deal  with.  Mat- 
thew, Mark,  Luke,  and  John  are  the  Lord's  team  of  four, 
the  true  cherubim  or  store  of  knowl-  «  ^  004 
edge,  .  .  The  Apostle  Paul  writes  to 
seven  churches  (for  the  eighth  epistle — that  to  the 
Hebrews — is  not  generally  counted  in  with  the  others). 
He  instructs  Timothy  and  Titus;  he  intercedes  with 
Philemon  for  his  runaway  slave.  Of  him  I  think  it  better 
to  say  nothing  than  to  write  inadequately.  The  Acts  of 
the  Apostles  seem  to  relate  a  mere  unvarnished  narrative 
descriptive  of  the  infancy  of  the  newly  born  church;  but 
when  we  once  realize  that  their  author  is  Luke  the  phy- 
sician, whose  praise  is  in  the  gospel,  we  shall  see  that  all 
his  words  are  medicine  for  the  sick  soul.  The  apostles, 
James,  Peter,  John,  and  Jude,  have  published  seven 
epistles  at  once  spiritual  and  to  the  point,  short  and 
long,  short  that  is  in  words  but  lengthy  in  substance,  so 
that  there  are  few  indeed  who  do  not  find  themselves 
in  the  dark  when  they  read  them.  The  Apocalypse  of 
John  has  as  many  mysteries  as  words.  In  saying  this 
I  have  said  less  than  the  book  deserves.  All  praise  of  it 
is  inadequate;  manifold  meanings  lie  hid  in  its  every 
word. 


376  APPENDIX 

X 

THE  CANON  OF  CARTHAGE 

Mansi,  III.  891.     2PNF  XIV  :  453,  454. 

Can.  39.  Besides  the  canonical  Scriptures,  nothing 
shall  be  read  in  church  under  the  name  of  divine  Scrip- 
ture. But  the  canonical  Scriptures  are  as  follows.  .  . 
The  New  Testament:  the  Gospels,  four  books;  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles,  one  book;  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  fourteen; 
the  Epistles  of  Peter  the  apostle,  two;  the  Epistles  of 
John  the  apostle,  three;  the  Epistle  of  James  the  apostle, 
one;  the  Epistle  of  Jude  the  apostle,  one;  the  Revelation 
of  John,  one  book.  Let  this  be  sent  to  our  brother  and 
fellow-bishop,  Boniface  [of  Rome],  and  to  the  other 
bishops  of  those  parts,  that  they  may  confirm  this 
canon,  for  these  are  the  things  that  we  have  received 
from  our  fathers  to  be  read  in  church. 

XI 

THE  CANON  OF  AUGUSTINE 

From  his  treatise  "On  Christian  Doctrine," 
bk.  ii.,  chap.  8.     PNF  II  :  538. 

Now  the  whole  Canon  of  Scripture  on  which  we  say 
this  judgment  is  to  be  exercised,  is  contained  in  the 

B.  H),  397  following  books  [we  omit  his  catalogue 
of  forty-four  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment]. .  .  That  of  the  New  Testament,  again,  is  con- 
tained within  the  following:    four  books  of  the  Gospel, 


APPENDIX  37)7 

according  to  Matthew,  according  to  Mark,  according 
to  Luke,  according  to  John;  fourteen  Epistles  of  the 
Apostle  Paul— one  to  the  Romans,  two  to  the  Corin- 
thians, one  to  the  Galatians,  to  the  Ephesians,  to  the 
Philippians,  two  to  the  Thessalonians,  one  to  the  Colos- 
sians,  two  to  Timothy,  one  to  Titus,  to  Philemon,  to  the 
Hebrews;  two  of  Peter,,  three  of  John;  one  of  Jude; 
and  one  of  James;  one  book  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles;  and  one  of  the  Revelation  of  John. 


XII 

THE  CANON  OF  RUFINUS 

From  his  Commentary  on  the  Apostles'  Creed, 
2PNF  III  :  558. 

Of   the    New    [Testament]    there   are    four    Gospels. 
Matthew,    Mark,    Luke,    and    John;     the    Acts    of    the 
Apostles,    written    by    Luke;     fourteen  j.   ^    oqo  /"?\ 
Epistles  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  two  of  the  ^^o  VO 

Apostle  Peter,  one  of  James,  brother  of  the  Lord  and 
apostle,  one  of  Jude,  three  of  John,  the  Revelation  of 
John.  These  are  the  books  that  the  Fathers  have  com- 
prised within  the  Canon,  and  from  which  they  would 
have  us  deduce  the  proofs  of  our  faith. 

But  it  should  be  known  that  there  are  also  other  books 
which  our  fathers  call  not  "  canonical  "  but  "  ecclesiasti- 
cal "...  in  the  New  Testament,  the  little  book  that 
is  called  the  book  of  the  Pastor  of  Hermas,  [and  that] 
which  is  called  the  Two  Ways,  or  the  Judgment  of 
Peter;  all  of  which  they  would  have  read  in  the 
churches,  but  not  appealed  to  for  the  confirmation  of 
doctrine.  The  other  writings  they  have  named  Apocry- 
pha.   These  they  would  not  have  read  in  the  churches. 


378  APPENDIX 

XIII 

LIST  OF  THE  CODEX  ALEXANDRINUS 

The  New  Testament 

a.  2).  400  (1) 

Gospels,  four. 

According  to  Matthew. 

According  to  Mark. 

According  to  Luke. 

According  to  John. 
Acts  of  the  Apostles. 
Catholic  Epistles,  seven. 
Epistles  of  Paul,  fourteen. 
Apocalypse  of  John. 
First  Epistle  of  Clement. 
Second  Epistle  of  Clement. 

XIV 

THE  CANON  OF  POPE  INNOCENT  I 

Translated  from  the  Latin  text  in  Westcott,  p. 
582. 

The   New  Testament:    Four  books  of  the  Gospels; 

fourteen  Epistles  of  Paul;   three  Epistles  of  John;   two 

21  D   405      Epistles  of  Peter;    the  Epistle  of  Jude; 

the  Epistle  of  James;    the  Acts  of  the 

Apostles;   the  Apocalypse  of  John.    But  the  rest,  either 

under  the  name  of  Matthias,  or  of  James  the  Less,  or 


APPENDIX  379 

under  the  name  of  Peter  and  John,  which  were  written 
by  a  certain  Leucius,  or  under  the  name  of  Andrew, 
which  were  written  by  the  philosophers  Nexocharidis 
and  Leonidas,  or  under  the  name  of  Thomas,  and  any 
others  there  may  be,  you  know  should  not  only  be  re- 
pudiated but  also  condemned. 


XV 

THE  CANON  OF  POPE  GELASIUS 

Translated  from  the  Latin  text  in  Westcott,  p. 
■584. 

Likewise  the  order  of  the  Scriptures  of  the  New 
Testament,  which  the  Holy  Roman  Catholic  Church 
21  5)  406  (1^  receives  and  venerates:  Four  books  of 
the  Gospels;  that  is,  Matthew,  one 
book;  Mark,  one  book;  Luke,  one  book;  John,  one 
book.  Likewise  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  one  book. 
The  Epistles  of  Paul,  in  number  fourteen;  the  Apoca- 
lypse, one  book;  Apostolic  Epistles,  in  number  seven; 
of  Peter  the  apostle,  in  number  two;  of  James  the 
apostle,  in  number  one;  of  John  the  apostle,  in  number 
three;   of  Jude  the  Zealot,  [in  number  one]. 


XVI 

THE  RATIFICATION  OF  THE  TRULLAN  COUNCIL 

Held  as  the  Seventh  Ecumenical  Council,  but 
repudiated  in  the  West.  Text  from  2PNF  XIV : 
361. 


380  APPENDIX 

Canon  ii.    It  has  also  seemed  good  to  this  holy  Coun- 
cil,  that   the   eighty-five   canons,   received   and   ratified 

S  5)  692  ^^  ^^^  ^**^^-^  ^"^  blessed  Fathers  before 
us,  and  also  handed  down  in  the  name 
of  the  holy  and  glorious  apostles,  should  from  this 
time  forth  remain  firm  and  unshaken  for  the  cure  of 
souls  and  the  healing  of  disorders.  .  .  We  set  our  seal 
likewise  upon  all  the  other  holy  canons  set  forth  by  our 
blessed  Fathers,  that  is  .  .  .  those  too  at  Laodicea.  .  . 
Likewise  too  the  canons  [i.  c,  the  decretal  letters]  of 
,  .  .  Athanasius  ...  of  Amphilochius  of  Iconium  .  .  . 
of  Gregory  Theologus  [Nazianzen], 


XVII 

THE  CANON  OF  POPE  EUGENIUS  IV 

From  his  Decretum  pro  Jacohinis;  from  Har- 
douin's  Councils,  IX.   1023,  1024. 

[The  Holy  Roman  Church]  most  firmly  believes,  pro- 
fesses, and  declares  that  one  true  God,  Father,  Son,  and 

S  D  1441  Holy  Spirit,  is  the  Creator  of  all  things, 
visible  and  invisible.  .  .  She  professes 
that  one  and  the  same  God  is  the  author  of  Old  and 
New  Testaments;  that  is,  of  the  law  and  prophets,  and 
of  the  Gospels,  since  both  Testaments  were  spoken 
under  the  inspiration  of  the  same  Holy  Spirit,  the 
books  of  which  she  received  and  venerates  as  contained 
under  the  following  titles  .  .  .  four  Gospels:  Mat- 
thew, Mark,  Luke,  John;  fourteen  Epistles  of  Paul: 
Romans,  two  to  the  Corinthians,  Galatians,  Ephesians, 
Philippians,  Colossians,  two  to  the  Thessalonians,  two 
to  Timothy,  Titus,  Philemon,  Hebrews;  two  of  Peter, 
three  of  John,  James,  Jude;  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
and  the  Apocalypse  of  John. 


INDEX 


Abbot,  Doctor  Ezra,  8i. 

Acts  of  the  Apostles:   its  canon- 

icity,    88,    146,    147,    152,    17S. 

i77f    356;    rejected    by    Encra- 

tites,       132;       in       Provisional 

Canon,     137;     an     anonymous 

book,    313. 
Acts  of  Andrew  and  John,  209, 

369. 
Acts  of  Paul,  210,  220,  237,  287. 
Acts   of   Peter,    209,   311. 
Alexandria,      influence      of,      on 

formation  of  Canon,  205,  343- 

345. 
Alogi,  reject  Johannine  writings, 

130,    131- 
Amphilochius,     Canon     of,     265, 

373. 

Anthony,  and  Coptic  versions, 
294. 

AniiIegome,na,  and  Alexandria, 
205,  307. 

Apocalypse:  and  Montanists, 
126;  in  the  East,  128;  in  the 
West,  129;  omitted  in  Canon 
of  Laodicea,  259;  not  in  Syr- 
ian Canon,  289;  not  in  Coptic 
versions,  295,  296;  Alexandria 
accepts,  345;  cited,  33,  99, 
130,  143,  145.  152,  17s,  233, 
237,  268,  287. 

Apocalypse  of  Peter,  question  of 
its  canonicity,  152,  201,  209, 
231-233.    237,    31I' 

Apocrypha:  Irenaeus  on,  138; 
the  O.  T.,  268. 

ApolUnaris,    140. 

Apostles,  authority  of,  26,  27, 
339. 


Apostolicon,  Marcion's,  107,  109, 
III. 

Apostolicity:  modified  sense  of, 
182,   313  seq..   356,   357. 

Apostolic  Canons,  372. 

Aristides,    249. 

Aristotle,  spurious  letters  of,  65. 

Asceticism:  of  Marcion,  102;  of 
the    Encratites,     132. 

Athanasius:  on  Hebrews,  179; 
Festal  Letter  of,  167,  260,  308, 
371;  his  Canon,  371,  372; 
cited,  28,  81,  129,  191,  198, 
203,    205,    265,    283,    345. 

Athenagoras:  on  inspiration,  51; 
a  layman,   249. 

Augustine:  at  synod  of  Car- 
thage, 261,  309,  310;  on  the 
Latin  versions,  292;  Canon  of, 
376;  cited,  28,   191,  205,   345- 

Baptism,  Justin  on,  80. 

Barnabas  (apostle):  opposed  by 
Paul,  106;  alleged  author  of 
Hebrews,    180. 

Barnabas  (epistle):  date  and 
author  of,  42;  first  quotes 
Gospels  as  "  Scripture,"  ibid.; 
relation  to  James,  188;  char- 
acter of,  discussed,  288-231; 
its  absurd  exegesis,  353;  cited, 
88,  90,  122,  180,.  209,  237, 
278,  283,  319,  342. 

Basil :  does  not  quote  Apocalypse, 
34;  his  quotations  of  Scrip- 
ture, 81;  accepts  Hebrews, 
180. 

Basilides,  99- 

Belgic  Confession,  270,  331- 

381 


INDEX 


Bessarion,  Cardinal,  280. 
Bishops  and  the  Canon,  190,  247 

seq.,   346. 
Boniface,    bishop   ot    Rome,    263, 

376. 
Bryennios,      publishes     the      Di- 

dache,    224. 
Bunyan      and      the      "  Pilgrim's 

Progress,"    334,    359. 

Calvin:  on  the  Canon,  327  seq.; 
on    the    Apocalypse,    345. 

Cassiodorus,    198. 

Catalogus  Claromontanus,   231. 

Canon:  importance  of  the  ques- 
tion, 6-10;  defined,  12,  13; 
writers  on,  16;  hypotheses  con- 
cerning, 17;  did  Rome  make 
it?  28,  165-167,  344-346;  ger- 
minal idea  of,  47;  a  product 
of  the  Catholic  Church,  57; 
influence  of  heresy  on,  95  seq., 
132,  133,  171,  341;  the  Pro- 
visional, 108,  137,  142  seq., 
342;  its  "sudden"  appear- 
ance, 139;  progress  of,  in 
third  century,  171  seq.;  Euse- 
bius  on,  175,  368;  the  Momm- 
senianus,  198;  a  "closed," 
120,  205,  350;  influence  of 
Alexandria  on,  205,  343-345: 
a  result  of  winnowing,  209, 
351;  the  Claromontanus,  237; 
books  rejected  from,  210  seq.; 
part  of  an  orderly  develop- 
ment, 257;  the  Laodicean,  258 
seq.;  Athanasius  on,  260,  261; 
synod  of  Carthage  on,  261  seq., 
310,  347,  365;  Reformation  and, 
263,  326  seq.;  Trullan  Coun- 
cil on,  264,  380;  Innocent  the 
Pope  on,  265-267;  finally  es- 
tablished, 268;  in  the  MSS, 
279-284;  in  the  versions,  292- 
298;  Erasmus  on,  322;  Luther 
on,  6,  7,  323-326;  Calvin  on, 
327  seq.;  every  believer's  pri- 
vate,  333;   the   real,   334;   why 


Protestants  accept  the,  347; 
Reformers  on,  348;  Jiilicher 
on,  351;  should  any  book  be 
added  to?  352;  should  any  be 
rejected  from?  353;  objection 
to  theory  of,  354;  apostolicity 
as  criterion  of,  356,  cf.  313 
seq.;  subjective  tests  of,  317- 
322,  357-360;  orthodox  theory 
of,  361;  in  Alexandrine  Co- 
dex, 378. 

Canon  of  O.  T.,  21,  41,  152, 
199,  337- 

Canonicity:  a  matter  of  usage, 
243,  287,  321,  305;  Jerome 
and,  299;  Fathers  on,  306-310; 
apostolicity  and,  182,  313  seq., 
356,  357;  ideas  of  Reformers 
on,  322  seq.;  edification  a  test 
of,  317-322;  consensus  of 
Christian  experience  on,  330 
seq.,    346,    349. 

Carthage,  synod  of,  261,  310, 
347,  376. 

Cerinthus,  the  Gnostic,  98,  127, 
129,    130,    131. 

Christ:  authority  of,  30-38,  338; 
opposed  to  Marcion's  ideas, 
106;  the  foundation  of  our 
faith,  355. 

Chiliasm  in  the  early  church,  122. 

Chillingworth  on  the   Bible,   4. 

Chrysostom:  on  the  Canon,  81, 
128,  180,  191,  197;  and  limits 
of    episcopal    authority,    257. 

Cicero,  letters  of,  65. 

Clement  (of  Rome) :  and  apos- 
tolic writings,  30;  letter  of, 
to  Corinthians,  65-67,  89,  98; 
his  epistles  cited,  141,  156, 
209,  214,  225-228,  319,  340, 
342,  352. 

Clement  (of  Alexandria):  on 
inspiration,  51;  testimony  to 
Provisional  Canon,  143  seq.; 
on  Hebrews,  176;  on  Jude, 
196;  on  Barnabas,  229;  on  the 
Shepherd,  235;   on  the   Apoca- 


INDEX 


383 


lypse,  295;  writings  cited,  205, 
217,  223,  225,  249,  311. 

Clergy,   influence  of,  256,   257. 

Constantine:  his  attitude  to 
Christianity,  zjy,  his  gift  of 
Scriptures,  274. 

Councils:  Carthage,  261  seq., 
310,  347,  376;  Laodicea,  258 
seq.,  263,  347,  370;  Trent, 
268,  347;  Trullan,  264,  265, 
380. 

Curetonian  version,  288. 

Cybele,   113. 

Cyprian:  on  authority  of  Scrip- 
ture, 172;  ignores  Hebrews, 
181;  rebukes  presbyters,  248; 
cited,   29,    195,   203. 

Cyril  (Alexandria),   180. 

Cyril  (Jerusalem) :  on  Canon, 
127,  i8o,  195,  198,  203,  224, 
283,  345,  370. 

Dante,  his  Divine  Comedy:  and 
the  Shepherd,  239;  and  the 
Apocalypse  of  Peter,   232. 

Demiurge,  Marcion's  idea  of, 
102. 

Diatessaron,    Tatian's,    251. 

Didache:  value  of,  59;  its 
quotations  from  Gospels,  34- 
36,  43,  340;  relation  of,  to 
James,  188;  among  the  Notha, 
209;  its  relation  to  the  Canon, 
223-225. 

Didymus,  his  testimony  to 
Canon,    180,    191,    197,   205. 

Diocletian,   persecution   of,   87. 

Diognetus,   epistle  to,   70,   90. 

Dionysius  (Corinth),  letter  to 
Romans,   67. 

Dionysius  (the  Great),  127^  128, 
194,  311- 

Docetism:  of  Cerinthus,  131;  in 
Gospel  of  Peter,  213,  250. 

Ebionites,     and     Gospel     accord- 
ing to  Hebrews,   217. 
Eck,  of  Ingolstadt,  3. 


Eddy,   Mrs.,    119. 

Empedocles,    philosophy    of,    loi. 

Encratites,   the,    131. 

Enoch,  book  of:  TertuUian  on, 
198,  318;  canonicity  of,   199. 

Epiphanius,  on  Canon,  98,  100, 
124,   130,    180,   191. 

Epistles,  Pauline:  quoted  by 
Clement  of  Rome,  32;  the  first 
Christian  literature,  60;  col- 
lections of,  64,  66;  public  read- 
ing of,  61,  67,  339;  rejected 
by  Encratites,  132;  in  Pro- 
visional Canon,  137;  attested 
by  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
143;  accepted  by  Marcion, 
341;  Cited,  99,  105,  107,  146, 
148,  152,  175,  286;  First  Cor- 
inthians, 37,  98,  334;  Ephe- 
sians,  37,  63;  Philippians,  6z, 
65;  Colossians,  62;  Thessa- 
lonians,  62,  291;  Timothy, 
107;  Titus,  107,  291;  Phile- 
mon, 107,  286. 

Epistles,  Catholic:  and  Alexan- 
drine Fathers,  205;  canonicity 
of,  343.  344;  First  Peter:  gen- 
erally accepted,  85,  91 ;  in 
Provisional  Canon,  137;  Euse- 
bius  on,  311;  cited,  iii,  143, 
145,  146,  148,  175,  334; 
Second  Peter:  date  of,  84; 
Harnack  on,  200  seq.;  early 
Fathers  on,  ibid.;  Clement  of 
Alexandria  and  later  Fathers, 
202  seq.;  alleged  pseudony- 
mous character  of,  222,  223; 
TertuUian  on,  318;  cited,  125, 
166,  175,  228,  268,  291,  325, 
344,  357;  First  John:  gener- 
ally accepted,  85,  91;  in  Pro- 
visional Canon,  137;  cited,  32, 
36,  III,  14s,  146,  152,  175, 
334;  Second  and  Third  John: 
doubts  concerning,  192;  East- 
ern Fathers  on,  193;  Mura- 
torian  Fragment  on,  194; 
cited,      166,      175,      344,      353; 


3^4 


INDEX 


James:  rejected  by  Luther,  7, 
325;  not  canonical  until  fourth 
century,  13;  Julicher  on,  183- 
185;  Harnack  on,  184;  Spitta 
on,  185;  why  recognition  of 
was  delayed,  189;  Fathers 
quote,  190,  191;  cited,  25,  145, 
152,  175,  268,  289,  291,  292, 
293,  325.  344;  Jude:  in  the 
Apostolic  Fathers,  195;  in 
later  Fathers,  187,  198;  its 
delayed  canonization,  198-200; 
cited,  145,  152,  175,  324,  325, 
344,    353. 

Erasmus  on  canonicity,  322,  323. 

Eugenius    IV   on    Canon,    380. 

Eusebius:  on  Canon,  175,  209, 
368;  on  Jude,  197;  on  First 
Clement,  226;  on  Barnabas, 
229;  on  Apocalypse  of  Peter, 
231;  on  Shepherd,  236;  makes 
copies  of  Scriptures,  274;  his 
Notha,  287,  307;  on  canonicity, 
307;  on  First  Peter,  311;  on 
Luke,  315;  quoted,  67,  68, 
81,  123,  127,  132,  144,  158, 
193.    194. 

Evangelicon,  Marcion's,  107,  109, 
III. 

Festal  Letter,  see  "  Athanasius." 

Gaius:  on  inspiration,  50;  heresy 
of,  130-.  and  the  Roman 
Church,  157,  158;  on  He- 
brews,  159. 

Gallican   Confession,   270,   331. 

Gelasius   on   Canon,    266,    379. 

God,  Marcion's  doctrine  of,  102, 
103. 

Gospels:  quoted  by  Clement  of 
Rome,  30;  in  the  Didache,  34- 
36;  quoted  by  Didymus,  37; 
by  Irenaeus,  45;  collections  of, 
68  seq.,  175,  284,  286;  in 
Provisional  Canon,  137;  tes- 
timony of  ApoUinaris,  140; 
acceptance    of    a    test    of    or- 


thodoxy, 140;  Justin's  testi- 
mony to,  340;  Matthew:  used 
by  Justin,  77;  by  heretics,  98; 
relation  to  Gospel  to  Hebrews, 
217;  cited,  31,  34,  42,  43,  99, 
146,  357;  Mark,  31,  356; 
Luke:  dedication  of,  61;  used 
by  Justin,  77;  relations  of  to 
Acts,  88;  Marcion  accepts, 
107,  341;  cited,  31,  34,  43, 
99,  147,  357;  John:  its  Logos 
doctrine,  78;  Heracleon's  com- 
mentary on,  99;  cited,  35,  52, 
53,  98,  99,  127,  130,  146,  147, 
152,  334. 

Gospel  according  to  the  Egyp- 
tians,   214,    215. 

Gospel  according  to  the  He- 
brews,   209,    215-218. 

Gospel  of  the  Infancy,  209. 

Gospel   of   Matthias,   209,    369. 

Gospel  of  the  Nazarenes,  39. 

Gospel    of    Nicodemus,    13,    209. 

Gospel  of  Peter,  59,  211-214, 
250,    311,    369- 

Gospel  of  Thomas,  209,  369. 

Gregory,  Caspar  Rene,  on  lan- 
guage of  Roman  Church,   55. 

Gregory  the  Great,  and  the  Vul- 
gate,  297. 

Gregory  of  Nazianzen,  180,  203, 
20s,   374. 

Gregory  of  Nyssa,  81,   180. 

Greek,  language  of  the  Roman 
Church,     155-161. 

Harnack:  on  Justin  Martyr,  82; 
on  formation  of  Canon,  iii; 
its  "sudden"  appearance,  139; 
on  testimony  of  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  145;  on  James, 
184;  on  Second  Peter,  200, 
201;   on   Zahn,  205. 

Hebrews,  Epistle  to:  to  whom 
addressed,  176;  Canonicity  of, 
176  seq.;  Fathers  on,  176-179; 
compared  with  Epistle  of  Bar- 
nabas,  230;   cited,    13,   32,    99, 


INDEX 


38; 


1^5.  14s,  152,  166,  204,  20s, 
228,  286,  289,  291,  292,  307, 
312,   313,  315.   325.   344,   356. 

Hegesippus,  relation  to  Rome, 
157- 

Ileracleon,  comraentary  on  John. 
52. 

Heresies,  in  Apostolic  age,  95; 
Ophite,  98;  effect  on  Canon, 
132,   341. 

Hermas,  author  of  the  Shep- 
herd, 233,  317. 

Hippolytus,  81,  100,  loi,  174. 

Homologoumena,  the,  of  Euse- 
bius,    307,    368. 

Hypotyposes,  the,  of  Clement, 
229. 

Ignatius:  genuine  Epistles  of, 
36;  his  citations  of  Scripture, 
37,  43;  on  authority  of  N.  T., 
381;  letters  of,  64-69;  on  the 
episcopate,  247;  cited,  29,  89, 
121,   225. 

Imitation  of  Christ,  the,  334, 
359. 

Innocent  I,  on  the  Canon,  265, 
345,  378. 

Inspiration:  Justin  on,  48; 
other  Fathers  on,  49-51;  Cath- 
olic idea  of,  117,  119;  early 
belief  in,  340;  convincing  evi- 
dence  of,    358. 

Instrument,  the  Apostolic,  99, 
no;  see  "New  Testament." 

Irenaeus:  on  authority  of  Scrip- 
ture, 44-47;  on  inspiration,  49; 
against  Heresies,  89;  on  the 
Apocrypha,  138;  his  use  of 
Greek,  156,  157;  on  First 
Clement,  226;  on  the  Shep- 
herd, 234;  on  presbyters,  248, 
306;  on  Provisional  Canon, 
243.  342;  cited,  99,  100,  in, 
112,  121,  122,  130,  131,  132, 
137,    139,    141,    143,    3". 

Jerome:    on    Hebrews,     179;    on 
Z 


Second  Peter,  204;  on  Gospel 
to  Hebrews,  216;  on  Barnabas. 
229;  his  Vulgate,  268;  on 
Latin  versions,  292;  his  Il- 
lustrious Men,  298;  his  influ- 
ence on  the  Canon,  299,  375; 
cited,  167,  191,  205,  249,  312, 
345- 

Jesus:    see    "  Christ." 

Johannine  writings,  130,  131;  see 
also  '  Gospels  "  and  "  Epis- 
tles." 

Joseph  of  Arimathea,  212. 

Judgment  of  Peter,   224. 

Julicher:  on  James,  183-185;  on 
Second  Peter,  200;  on  the 
growth  of  the  Canon,  351. 

Justin  (Martyr) :  apologies  of, 
43;  on  inspiration,  48;  on  the 
"  gospel,"  70;  on  the  "  Mem- 
oirs," 71,  306,  314;  his  quo- 
tations from  the  Septuagint, 
71-73;  from  the  Gospels,  jz- 
77;  his  use  of  the  fourth 
Gospel,  78-82;  his  account  of 
Christian  worship,  83,  340; 
his  knowledge  of  the  Pauline 
epistles,  91;  a  layman,  249; 
cited,  90,  108,  123,  139,  140, 
312. 

Lactantius:  quotes  James,  191;  a 
layman,  249. 

Laodicea,  synod  of,  258  seq., 
347,    370. 

Laodiceans,   Epistle   to,   62. 

Laymen  of  the  early  church,  249, 
257. 

Liberty,  Christian,  in  the  Paul- 
ine  Epistles,    132. 

Literature,  Christian:  the  Epis- 
tles the  earliest,  59;  Ramsay 
on,  60;  alleged  lost  treasures 
of.    5. 

Logos  doctrine   of  Philo,   79. 

Luke,  alleged  author  of  Hebrews, 
176  seq.;  Gospel  of,  see  "  Gos- 
pels." 


386 


INDEX 


Luther:  at  Leipzig,  3;  on  the 
Canon,  6,  323-3-26,  334,  345- 

Manuscripts,  New  Testament:  Si- 
naitic,  276  seq.;  Vatican,  279 
seq.;  Alexandrine,  282;  Eph- 
raem,  283;  Bezae,  284;  Claro- 
montanus,   286, 

Marcion:  events  in  his  life,  99; 
a  Gnostic,  loi;  his  philosophy, 
102;  theology  of,  103;  idea 
of  law  and  Gospel,  104;  Ne- 
ander's  opinion  of,  105;  his 
Canon,  106  seq.,  no,  148, 
341 ;   his  two  gods,    149. 

Marcosians,  their  apocryphal 
writings,  138. 

Maximilla,   114. 

Messiah,  Marcion's  doctrine  of, 
103. 

Montanism:  origin  and  nature 
of,  112;  its  prophets,  114; 
Tertullian  on,  115,  116;  Catho- 
lic opposition  to,  117  seq.;  its 
chiliasm,  122  seq.;  its  rela- 
tion to  the  Apocalypse,  126; 
its  influence  on  the  Canon, 
342. 

Muratorian  Fragment:  how  wide- 
ly accepted,  85;  agrees  with 
Tertullian,  143;  discovery  of, 
150;  its  date,  151;  testimony 
of,  to  Provisional  Canon,  152; 
object  of  its  list,  153,  154; 
origin,  155  seq.;  omits  James, 
191;  cited,  198,  231,  234,  306, 
317,    342,    365-367- 

Neander,    on   Marcion,    105. 
New  Testament:  name  first  used 

by     Clement     of     Alexandria, 

149;     see     "  Scriptures,"     and 

"  Canon." 
Nice,   council   of,    120,   223,   229, 

236,    353- 
Notha,   Eusebius   on,   209   seq. 

Old    Testament:    read    in    syna- 


gogues, 23,  337;  received  by 
apostles,  24-26;  rejected  by 
Marcion,  104;  received  by  En- 
cratites,  132;  uncertainty  of 
its  Canon,  41,  152,  199,  337; 
see  "  Scriptures." 

Ophite  heresy,   98. 

Origen :  his  commentary  o  n 
John,  S3;  on  inspiration,  172; 
on  Hebrews,  179;  omits  Jude, 
197;  on  the  Gospel  according 
to  the  Hebrews,  217;  on  Bar- 
nabas, 229;  on  the  Shepherd, 
235;  on  the  Apocalypse,  295; 
cited,   81,    166,    194,    249,    311. 

Orthodoxy,  definition  of,  95. 

Paraclete,  Montanistic  doctrine 
of,   113,   114. 

Papias:  prefers  tradition  to 
Scripture,  58;  on  the  "  peri- 
cope  "  of  John,  215;  on  Mat- 
thew, 217;  cited,  123,  311,  312, 
314- 

Parousia,  place  of,  124. 

Paul,  apostle:  claims  divine  au- 
thority, 26  seq.,  358;  on  rela- 
tion of  law  to  gospel,  104; 
his   attitude   to   Peter,    106. 

Peppuza,  place  of  Parousia,   124. 

Peshito    version,    128,    288. 

Peter:  Apocalypse  of,  152,  201, 
209,  231-233,  237,  311;  Judg- 
ment of,  224;  preaching  of, 
209;  Gospel  of,  59,  21 1-2 14, 
250,  311. 

Philadelphia   Confession,   4,   381. 

Philadelphians,  letter  of  Ignatius 

to,  38- 
Philippians,   Polycarp's   letter  to, 

41 ;    see    "  Epistles." 
Philo,  his  doctrine  of  the  Logos, 

78. 
Philostorgius      on      the      Canon, 

301. 
Phoenix,   fable  of,   228,   352. 
Photius,   of  Constantinople,    157. 


INDEX 


387 


Phrygia,  113,  124. 

"  Pilgrim's   Progress,"    334,    359, 

Pius,  bishop  of  Rome,  151,  161, 
164,  165,  317. 

Polycarp:  letter  of,  to  Philip- 
pians,  40,  64,  66;  his  cita- 
tion of  Scripture,  ibid.;  and 
Irenaeus,  46;  and  Epistle  of 
Jude,  196;  cited,  90,  98,  108, 
141.  312, 

Popes,  Eugenius  IV,  380;  Greg- 
ory VIII,  297;  Innocent  I, 
26s,  345,  378;  Gelasius,  266, 
379. 

Preaching,   the,   of  Peter,  209. 

Priscilla    (Prisca),    114,    124. 

Protestant:  was  Marcion  a,  105; 
attitude  to  the  Canon,  347. 

Protevangelium,    209, 

Provisional  Canon:  quoted  by 
Tertullian,  125;  Marcion  a  wit- 
ness to,    108. 

Reformation,  and  the  Canon,  3 
seq.,  263,   348. 

Regula   adei,   Tertullian  on,    316. 

Revelation.      See    "  Apocalypse." 

Rome,  bishops  of:  Boniface,  263, 
276;  Pius,  151,  161,  164,  165, 
317;    see    "  Popes." 

Rome,  Church  of:  and  the 
Canon,  8,  9,  108,  no,  268, 
345.  346;  language  of,  155; 
Tertullian  on,  255  seq.;  medi- 
ocrity of,   344. 

Rufinus:  on  First  Clement,  227; 
on  the  Shepherd,  237,  377;  on 
the    Canon,   249,    377. 

Savoy  Declaration,  the,  4. 

Scriptures,  the:  supreme  au- 
thority of,  3,  4;  inspiration  of, 
5.  47.  53.  172;  what  constitute 
the,  6;  the  O.  T.,  23;  read  in 
the  synagogues,  24,  337;  pub- 
lic reading  of,  25,  175,  181; 
apostolic  writings  recognized 
as,  29  seq.,   41,  42;   quotations 


of  by  early  Fathers,  30,  36, 
37,  43;  growing  appreciation 
of,  39;  relation  of  church  to, 
45,  46;  allegorical  interpreta- 
tion of,  52,  S3;  how  preserved, 
86;  how  used  by  heretics,  95, 
96;  Fathers  on  authority  of, 
173,  seq. 

Serapion,  on  Gospel  of  Peter, 
211,  250. 

Shepherd,  the:  regarded  as  Scrip- 
ture, 59;  relation  to  the  Ro- 
man Church,  161-163;  its  anti- 
Montanism,  158,  180;  its  rela- 
tion to  James,  184,  185,  188, 
191;  Origen  on,  166;  Athana- 
sius  on,  224,  372;  described 
and  discussed,  233-239;  com- 
pared to  the  "  Pilgrim's  Prog- 
ress," 238;  cited,  13,  88,  209, 
278,  283,  307,  317,  318,  319, 
320,    342,   352. 

Silence,   the   argument   from,   34. 

Simon  Magus,  knowledge  of 
N.  T.,  98. 

Smith,  Joseph,  his  "  inspiration," 
358. 

Sozomen,  on  the  Apocalypse  of 
Peter,  231. 

Stephen,  the  Martyr,  89. 

Stromata,  the,  of  Clement,  229. 

Synagogue,  the,  and  the  Scrip- 
tures, 24,  337. 

Syriac  version,  86. 

Swedenborg,  his  "  inspiration," 
358. 

Tatian:  his  Diatessaron,  69,  140, 
218-220;  and  the  Encratites, 
132;  an  influential  presbyter, 
249. 

Taylor,  Dr.  George  B.,  and  his 
book,    159. 

Tertullian:  bitter  invectives  of, 
97;  his  chiliastic  ideas,  124; 
his  testimony  to  the  Pro- 
visional Canon,  125,  147  seq., 
342;    on    Hebrews,    179,    307; 


388 


INDEX 


approves  Jude,  195.  198;  on 
literary  forgeries,  221;  on  the 
Shepherd,  234,  243,  307,  3i8, 
320;  on  synods,  244,  258;  his 
"dictatorial  I,"  252;  a  "lumi- 
nous passage  "  from,  254  seq.; 
his  use  of  Latin  versions,  290- 
292;  on  Gospel  of  Mark  and 
Luke,  314;  on  the  rule  of 
faith,  316;  on  Enoch,  318;  on- 
Second  Peter,  318;  cited,  99, 
100,  102,  107,  108,  109,  114, 
115,  116,  117,  129,  143,  172, 
191,   249. 

Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  128, 
180,   191,   197. 

Theodoret:  and  Tatian's  Diates- 
saron,  219,  251;  does  not 
quote  Apocalypse,    128,    197. 

Theophilus,  of  Antioch:  on  in- 
spiration, 49;  on  the  Canon, 
146,   148,   196. 

Tischendorf,  discovers  Codex 
Sinaiticus,    276    seq.,    280. 

Tobit,  quoted  by  Polycarp,  41. 

Trent,  Council  of,  on  the  Canon, 
263,  268,   347. 


Trullan    Council    on    the    Canon, 

264,  265,   380. 
Two   Ways,   the,   224;    see    "  Di- 

dache." 

Ulfilas,    version    of,    301. 

Valentinus,  heresy  of,  99. 

Versions:  Aramaic,  288  seq.; 
Latin,  early,  290  seq.;  Jerome's 
Vulgate,  293,  296  seq.;  Coptic, 
294  seq.;  Armenian,  299;  Ethi- 
opic,   300;   Gothic,   301. 

Vienne  and  Lyons,  churches  of, 
88. 

Virgin  birth,  idea  of,  79. 

Vulgate,  the:  includes  Apocry- 
pha, 268;  Jerome's,  296  seq.; 
influence  of  on  the  Canon, 
298. 

Westminster   Confession,   4,   270, 

331. 
Wisdom,  book  of,  152,  372. 

Zephyrinus,  bishop  of  Rome,  158. 
Zwingli,  on  the  Apocalypse,  345. 


Date  Due 


tAOUl 


MH  TY 


''"^  ■  \  ^^m^^^"^^    '%. 


F^aHiTi: 


